Sitting of 21 October 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Clelland.]

PRAYERS

  Steel Industry
  9.34 am
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting me this debate. It is the first debate on steel since I was elected Member of Parliament for Rotherham four years ago to represent that great steel-producing centre in Europe. May I quickly declare an interest? I have 25 shares in British Steel, the dividends from which hardly pay for a "happy meal" for one of my children. I also have a close continuing relationship with the lion and Steel Trades Confederation, both locally and nationally, which I value.
  Before I begin, I wish to make a point that is relevant to the debate. An extraordinary report appears in today's Yorkshire Post, which says:
  "The Governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, said that northern job cuts may be necessary. 'I suppose', he said, `that unemployment in the north was an acceptable price to pay for curbing inflation in the south.'"
  That statement exposes the fallacy of having our economy controlled and determined by the values of the City. Mr. George may have been misquoted. If so, he must clarify what he said, but if he sticks by that statement, he should apologise. If he continues to say that the people of the north of England are ready to be sacrificed to guard his interests, he should join them and resign.
  Let me return to the subject of this debate. I am pleased to see so many hon. Members in their seats. I am delighted that, when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), was named to head that great Department, he said that he wanted to be known as the Secretary of State for Industry. Today he will get the chance to prove that he is a friend of industry, because I am sure that my very good friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, will respond positively to the propositions that I and others will put to him in this debate.
  Steel is now asking for the same interdepartmental attention that coal has received in the past 18 months. Despite its problems, the UK steel industry is a success. It earns £4 billion a year in exports, which have risen fivefold in the past 15 years. It earns far more than the film or music industries. Much as I welcome the new jobs in culture and leisure, we ignore the mega-money made by steel at our peril. The industry's record of industrial relations is second to none—except at the unhappy Co Steel plant in Sheerness, where the treatment of workers is a disgrace by international, let alone British, standards. The giant mastodon of British Steel, which
  1192
  controls more than four fifths of UK output, operates alongside relative newcomers like Ispat and Caparo, which work fruitfully with the unions.
  Times are hard now, but since 1996 British Steel has made nearly £2 billion in profit. Thus, if, as the Secretary of State said in America last week, he wants to invest in clusters of economic success, and wants to back British-based and British-managed companies, and the entrepreneurship that we see in newcomers on the scene, which together earn far more for the UK than the "Full Monty" or the Spice Girls, I appeal to him to give the UK steel industry his full backing. It needs it, because it faces problems that are not, for the most part, of its OWN making. The problems at Longbridge announced today will exacerbate those difficulties. A rod mill has just closed in my constituency, and the highly successful, flexible and profitable Avesta stainless steel mill faces closure next door in Sheffield.
  In the first eight months of this year, crude steel production rose by 5 per cent. in Germany and France, 4 per cent. in Italy, and 15 per cent. in Spain, but went down by 2 per cent. in Britain. Blast furnaces are being shut down; rotas are being changed; and men are being asked to work family-destroying hours and shifts to avoid employing new people. Not a steel worker in Britain, from chief executive to newly appointed apprentice, can feel 100 per cent. secure for his future.
  Nearly all those problems are directly inherited from the previous Government. The Conservative party left time bombs ticking in the manufacturing economy, and it is Labour's job to seek to defuse them before long-lasting damage is done. The first time bomb is the anti-manufacturing culture, which permeated Britain throughout the 1980s and this decade. The second is the yo-yoing pound sterling—high under Lords Lawson and Lamont; low for a while under the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). It went up again in 1996 and 1997, steadily rising higher and higher to cause the damage that is now being wrought on the steel industry, as he refused to take action to control his pointless pre-election boom. Now the pound is coming down again, but who knows what the value of yo-yo sterling will be in three, six, 12 or 24 months?
  The third time bomb is Conservative isolationist hostility to Europe at the cost of any influence that the United Kingdom needs to have over decisions taken jointly with our European partners which impact on our steel industry. The fourth is an anti-manufacturing system of electricity pricing so perverse that Conservative Ministers could not have done a better job had they deliberately designed it to damage the steel industry. The fifth time bomb is the blind worship of unmanaged trade flows, whether in capital or goods, which has led to the present crisis of the world economy.
  The sixth time bomb is the view that privatisation plus deregulation plus globalisation was a new magic formula that would solve all economic problems. If someone called a firm a plc and had it quote on Wall street or the stock exchange in London, that alone was thought to be sufficient to ensure success.
  Let us take these Tory follies one by one, and consider what needs to be done. The most important change is to put into reverse the anti-manufacturing culture of the Conservative era. Steel has been, is and always will be

  1193
  cyclical. It requires long lead times for investment and production and for securing markets and sales. The chronic instability of the pound sterling is one root cause of the industry's problems.
  The United States, Germany, the Netherlands and other European countries with successful steel industries all operate with interest rates set by independent central banks. The pound yo-yoed even more violently before May 1997 than it does today. Steel will continue to suffer until we form a linkage with the euro.
  Mr. Alan Clark: I am listening with great interest and considerable sympathy to the case that the hon. Gentleman is making, but much of his argument in fraudulent. He refers to the fluctuating rate of sterling and compares the industry's performance with that of the United States and of Germany. Over that period, the deutschmark and the US dollar had even higher levels of fluctuation than the pound sterling.
  Mr. MacShane: If the right hon. Gentleman examines the flows of the dollar, up and down, since the 1986 Plaza accord, he will find that it has been relatively stable. The deutschmark, certainly in the past 10 years, has been a well-managed currency. I do not want to enter into pro and anti-economic and monetary union arguments, but simply want to place on record my view that, until we have currency stability, and until we are a full economic player in Europe, we should not expect steel to do well.
  I appeal to the industry to use its resources to give a kick up the pants of British business, so that it drops its vestal virgin blushes and campaigns publicly, loudly, forcefully and cheerfully for the view that our isolation from EMU cannot last much longer if manufacturing is to survive and thrive. On that point, I must give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. Llew Smith: Although I obviously support my hon. Friend's demand for the sacking of Eddie George, what is far more important is the fact that, on almost our first day in power, we handed power over interest rates to a group of unelected and unaccountable bankers. All this morning's rhetoric and all the words of the Chancellor cannot alter the level of interest rates. If we learn something from this, surely it must be that interest rates must go back under political control. Democratically elected Governments could then take decisions affecting the industry and the community, which depend on them.
  Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend makes his point forcibly. There is no suggestion that deciding interest rates politically in the Treasury, before May 1997, was of any help to the United Kingdom economy. Interest rates do not become a political football in the countries where steel operates successfully.
  I welcome the new Labour Government extending the hand of friendship to our European partners, which is paying off in terms of the directive on end-of-life vehicles. That is not a reference to former Conservative Members of Parliament. Concerted efforts by the Minister, to whom I pay tribute, his officials, Members of the European Parliament such as David Bowe and Linda McAvan, and
  1194
  the industry's experts are producing a good result for Britain's engineering steel makers. What a contrast that is to the anti-European antics of the main opposition party, which ensured that the United Kingdom steel industry had no voice or friends in Europe.
  The Minister has been helpful on Europe, but I want him to be helpful on the cost of energy, which is so loaded against steel makers in Britain.
  Helen Jackson: Before my hon. Friend moves on to energy prices, and while he is praising the special engineering steel sector, does he recognise what is not often said in the Chamber and elsewhere—that that sector is one of the most environmentally pure of all manufacturing sectors? Recycling is total: without the special engineering steel sector, this country would have to dispose of all its scrap elsewhere. That must be balanced when we talk about the energy and environmental costs of the steel industry.
  Mr. MacShane: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who is a great expert on these matters. I sometimes wish that Britain's steel factories were painted bright green to send out a message that, despite the smokestack image, they constitute one of the most eco-friendly industries in our economy.
  I ask the Minister to be helpful on energy. It is often said that electricity prices in Britain are a bit like the 19th century Schleswig-Holstein question, of which, hon. Members will recall, Lord Palmerston said only three people in the world understood it: one was dead, one was mad, and he himself had forgotten. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Minister is dead, he has not yet been driven mad by the burden of office, and I hope that he has not forgotten the importance of the problem, but understands that the corrupt, fixed, rigged electricity market that we inherited from the Tories does such damage to steel, and why it needs reform.
  The facts are hardly known to the general public. Although it now takes 40 per cent. less energy to produce a tonne of steel than in 1970, which backs up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), British steel firms pay far more for electricity—often 25 to 30 per cent. More—than their competitors in mainland Europe.
  Remember: although the United Kingdom has more natural energy resources than any other European Union country, our prices are the highest. In 1997–98, the price of electricity charged to the industry rose by 20 per cent., despite fuel costs falling on the world and local markets. That meant that the revenues of the dominant generators—National Power, PowerGen and Eastern—rose by about £590 million, which is more than the £576 million that they paid in windfall tax.
  I cannot believe that the Chancellor intended that, in effect, steel and other industrial customers would pay for his windfall tax because of the excessively high prices that the regulator lets the generators charge. I stress that this is not a free-market operation; nor do the rules of competition come into play. This is another anti-manufacturing racket inherited from the previous Government.
  The Minister has announced a review, but its outcome is unlikely to be known much before the millennium, by which time steel will have suffered further cuts and job

  1195
  losses. If the regulator continues to allow the electricity generators their profiteering on the backs of steel, there will be a much smaller customer base when the review is finished.
  I urge the Minister to take steps to institute a temporary cap on the electricity oligopoly's price racket.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I do not want to disturb the flow of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he think that the current moratorium on gas-fired power station consent is contributing to a rise in, or the sustaining of, the electricity price level, or helping to reduce it in the way that he wants?
  Mr. MacShane: I firmly believe that the Government can take action to institute a temporary cap. Rather than waiting for the millennium dome to open its doors and the electricity price review to be published, I urge the Minister to respond to that. To refer and defer to the regulator is not enough. The Deputy Prime Minister has shown leadership on the matter of the rail regulator, and on rail travel prices. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should this week do no less to ensure fair play for the steel industry.
  The Department could also take steps to prevent the unfair dumping of steel products in the United Kingdom and other European Union countries. At the moment, we have the absurd sight of a significant surge in steel imports—which are up by 81 per cent. this year—into the UK and the EU from Serbia. In the morning, Slobodan Milosevic's steel factories produce steel for his tanks and guns to oppress the people of Kosovo; in the afternoon, they produce steel to put British steel workers out of their jobs, and earn hard currency in this country.
  That is an EU-wide problem. Steel imports from third countries into the European Union have gone up from 40,000 tonnes a month in the first half of 1997 to almost 300,000 tonnes a month so far this year. We cannot have a 700 per cent. increase in steel imports in under 12 months and call that fair or free trade.
  Hon. Members with whom I have debated will know that I am, by conviction, a free trader. I have stood my ground on that policy against many in my party whose first instincts are more protectionist. Such a surge is not due to the temporary flow of a newly fashionable toy—yo-yos from China, garments or electronic games—but will permanently damage the United Kingdom. We must join our partners in Europe and insist that dumping and unfair trade practices are swiftly investigated, and that quick action is taken.
  The United States has already shown a lead. We should not increase our dole queues for the sake of an ideology that only the UK believes in, while the rest of the world moves on, or the dumpers move in and take over our markets.
  Mr. Barry Jones: There are problems in the steel industry in Wales. My constituents at Shotton steel works face redundancies. They have asked me to emphasise that they want help on energy prices and on the dumping of steel in Britain.
  Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose work on behalf of steel workers not just in Wales
  1196
  but throughout the United Kingdom is well known. His points are well made, and I hope that the Minister will take them on board.
  We need action on dumping. If we are tough enough to say "no entry" to a score or so of Slovakian gipsies fleeing hard and cruel times in their own country, we should be manly enough to say "whoa" or "slow down" to the scores of thousands of tonnes of steel that are causing hard and cruel times for steel workers in South Yorkshire.
  That leads me to what is, in some ways, the worst of the Conservative inheritance: the slavish view that the only model is that based on shareholder value, in which consumers, employees and communities take second, third or no place at all. The tyranny of quarterly outturns and half-yearly dividend payments is a straitjacket from which British Steel should liberate itself. When the company can spend—as it did last year—£140 million buying its own shares in a fruitless stock market manoeuvre, something is wrong with its priorities. That is almost half as much as the entire UK steel industry invests in a good year.
  Investment in Indonesia has melted away, as anyone who knew about the lack of democracy and the corruption in that country could have told British Steel. All that money would have been better spent on investment in the United Kingdom, or on securing a footprint in Euroland, because the proposed investment in Katowice in Poland cannot replace a serious engagement with the main markets in Europe.
  Perhaps some in the steel industry believe that privatisation plus share options has meant the end of a relationship with Government. However, every day, every hour and every minute, we receive briefings from British Steel and other companies and the UK Steel Association—for which we are grateful, because we work as a team with the industry—requesting us to knock on the door of Government to ask for help on trade, energy prices, sterling, dumping and the other factors that no steel company can control but which control steel's fate. The steel industry is asking for a new partnership with Government, and I hope that they, through the Minister, will respond positively.
  That requires a new approach to partnership right throughout the industry. Partnership means the full and timely sharing of information, which was not the case in Avesta in Sheffield, where the employees and their unions of the British Steel subsidiary company in Sweden were treated more equally, in the Orwellian sense, than those in South Yorkshire.
  I hear too many stories in the industry of agreements not being fully honoured and of threats rather than co-operation. I do not believe that they are merely grumpy anecdotes of the dissatisfied. I urge all in the UK steel industry, and British Steel in particular, to ask themselves whether the time has not come to place trust and full information sharing from top to bottom as a priority in the industry in the hard times ahead.
  Mr. Phil Hope: Unfortunately, Corby no longer makes steel, thanks to the efforts of the Conservative party. We still manufacture high-quality tubes in Corby, for home and export. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that British Steel owes much of its success to the skills and motivation of the work force, despite the travails of the Conservative Government? Given the

  1197
  partnership between the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, employers and the Government, we should look forward to investment in the industry, in people and in training as the key to the success of the steel industry in the future.
  Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I hope that it is taken on board.
  The steel industry faces a rocky period. Orders are down, and prices are 20 per cent. lower than a year ago and falling. Jobs will go. I appeal to the Minister to release funds under his control, or under his guidance through the RESIDER programme, to Steel Partnership, one of the training bodies in Rotherham, which seeks to ensure that, when people lose their jobs, they do not lose their skills, their aptitude for work and their self-confidence.
  I do not want to be over-gloomy. Since the days of Vulcan, steel making has involved the more awesome alchemy of transforming raw materials through the crafts and skills of the men to which my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) referred.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his own points. I am taking up quite a lot of time.
  In any steel plant today, the heat, light and raw power are the same as they were 2,000 years ago. Steel is a continuing part of the manufacturing base of any civilised country. We allow our steel industry to decline further at our peril. The managers, technologists and workers of Britain's steel industry can and will survive. I have outlined how Government can help, but both sides of industry and the steel communities have a part to play.
  I suggest that the time is right for a national round table on steel, to allow all those with a stake in the industry to meet and to put their cards on the table. I am not talking about negotiations, corporatist encounters, tripartism or any of the ancient formulas. Instead, I propose a new way—my hon. Friends may call it a third way, and Opposition Members may call it the British way if they have read the Chancellor's recent speeches. It is a new way that allows us all to see what needs to be done, what needs to be changed, what needs to be offered and what needs to be conceded to secure a bright future for an industry that I firmly believe is part of tomorrow's Britain.
  9.57 am
  Mr. Richard Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) for raising this subject. I firmly agree with his initial comments. Jobs in the north are vital, and if we tilt the economy any further towards the south-east, we shall be heading for disaster. That will affect people not only in the north, but in the south-east as the pressures there become unbearable.
  Sheffield now produces more steel than it has ever produced. We have had great success in projecting a new image through entertainment and the service industry. "The Full Monty" and other forms of entertainment have
  1198
  been tremendously successful—so much so that, when I make an after-dinner speech, rather than expecting me to talk about industry, people want me to take my clothes off, as they think that that is what men from Sheffield do these days. This august Chamber is safe from any such Sheffield-like behaviour.
  With our friends in Rotherham, we remain a world-class centre of excellence in the manufacturing and processing of steel, despite our shiny new image as a city of fun. It is essential that we get the European context right, particularly the impact of European monetary union. From next year, the euro will propagate through the supply chain. Businesses such as steel, which trade heavily in other European countries, will, whether they like it or not, find that the euro is an essential fact of their business life. The Government's attitude to the euro, and to economic and monetary union, will be vital in securing the interests of all businesses that trade heavily with Europe. Whatever the politics involved, there is a strong business case for close engagement with Europe in this context.
  That is particularly relevant in areas such as mine, where many companies are Anglo-Swedish. We are likely to have one component of a company in the Euro-zone, and another outside it. That will mean some complex economics, and, again, the Government's attitude will give the management of those Swedish companies a strong signal as to how Britain intends to proceed. It will make a significant difference to their investment decisions, determining whether they buy new plant in Sweden or—as I hope—in Sheffield and other British cities.
  The second issue that I want to raise is that of electricity prices, which the hon. Member for Rotherham rightly mentioned. As he pointed out, the pool system is an oligopoly for three large generators. The signs are not good for reform. The gas market has moved on—gas prices at the wholesale level have fallen—but legislative time is not being given for the establishment of a new electricity structure that would allow the abolition of the pool system.
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. John Battle): Having dedicated about a third of my life to reforming the pool system, I must point out that we said in opposition that we would challenge it, when others said that it was too arcane even to be looked at. One of the first tasks that I undertook in government was that of asking the regulator to present proposals, which he did. Only two weeks ago, we announced that we would take the regulator's recommendations as the basis for a full and radical overhaul of the pool.
  We are talking about the wholesale market for electricity. We cannot simply abolish the system, as some have suggested; if we did, no power stations would operate, and there would be no electricity at all. The project is well under way—there is no holding back—but there is no doubt that it is complex.
  Mr. Allan: I am pleased to note the Minister's passion, which suggests that we may see changes in the near future. I hear voices saying that the pool system urgently needs reform, and I am glad to learn that reform is on its way.
  A third issue is investment in research and technology. Sheffield contains two fine universities, the university of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam university. Both are able

  1199
  to supply our industry, including the steel industry, with a competitive edge by providing the skills and research that are needed for the development of new products that will set us ahead of our competitors. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are committed, on a cross-departmental level, to ensuring that our educational institutions can link with industry and provide it with the support it needs.
  I believe that I heard on the radio this morning—it may have been a fantasy, as I was lying in bed at the time—confirmation that the university for industry would be in Sheffield. I know that it is not the Minister's departmental responsibility, but if that is so, it is very encouraging. The university for industry and similar initiatives are vital to the achievement of a competitive steel industry, without which—however much we invest—we are unlikely to succeed.
  I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government are committed to investing in excellence in manufacturing, because that is what we have in Sheffield and Rotherham. I hope that my constituents, and all the people of Sheffield, will be able to feel some confidence that progress is being made, and that the importance of the issues that we have discussed today has been recognised. I know that the Minister feels passionately about those issues, and I look forward to hearing him announce initiatives similar to the university for industry, such as the reform of pool prices that we so desperately need.
  10.3 am
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on his excellent speech, and thank him for the opportunity to speak—especially as I, too, had made a bid for an Adjournment debate.
  I want to talk about Co Steel, a Canadian-owned company in Sheerness, in my constituency, and to describe the way in which decent men are being bullied and harassed by its management. I want to know from the Minister, and from the Department of Trade and Industry, about the current thinking in relation to our fairness at work strategies, and whether any of those proposals will alter the scenario that I am about to relate.
  First, let me make a confession. My mother, Peggy, is a proud Canadian, as is my sister, and as was my late brother. They would not be best pleased by the tale that I am about to tell. The Canadian high commissioner took it on himself to visit the plant last week, and gave all the wrong signals. He let his country down.
  Co Steel in Sheerness is for sale. The Toronto-based company is having problems of its own, stretching back to a bond issue that was withdrawn a couple of years ago, and a joint venture in a new mill whose price has escalated. Some 550 jobs are at risk: the community will be devastated.
  Two years ago, Joe Davey, who had worked at Co Steel for 25 years, was sacked a few days before Christmas. Joe had been an active trade unionist for all his time at the company. In 1992, Co Steel became a union-free shop. Although substantial union work is being undertaken at Co Steel through the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union and the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, unions are banned.
  1200
  Joe Davey—with the admirable support of his union, the ISTC—took Co Steel to the industrial tribunal at Ashford. Here are some of its findings. On senior management at Co Steel, it stated:
  "We find some witnesses we regarded as essentially unreliable."
  On the personnel manager, Dr. Hugh Billot, it stated:
  "Having heard the lengthy evidence in this case, it seems to us that Dr. Billot is being disingenuous. The company may not have been collectively hostile to trade unions, but there is no doubt that Dr. Billot himself was hostile, and that his view of the unions informed the company's approach."
  To make the sale of Co Steel more attractive, over the last month there have been 45 so-called voluntary redundancies and—surprise, surprise—19 wholesale redundancies. Let me read some of the letters that are being sent to me over the past few weeks. One correspondent wrote:
  "I had an industrial accident at Co Steel. I used holidays so as not to penalise on the existing points scheme that is enforced at Co Steel. I eventually had an operation on my back. I was made redundant."
  I have had other letters, from decent citizens in my constituency. One reads:
  "I am one of those made redundant. Co Steel has given the excuse of work behaviour and performance for my redundancy. What I should like to know is, after 20 or so years of loyal service, why they have decided that my behaviour and performance is not up to standard. It is possible that it is because I am a union member. If it is so that Co Steel needed to lose 60 members of staff, why were only 21 accepted for early retirement, and of those why were so many union members?"
  Another letter reads:
  "As you know, the company derecognised the unions in April 1992, so why is it that we have been made redundant? Why have we been refused union recognition?"
  Another reads:
  "You may already be aware of the despicable treatment of a number of men made redundant by the personnel director at Co Steel. As an active trade unionist, it is no surprise to find myself on the list."
  And so on, and so on.
  My concerns are these. Some of the Co Steel management is a disgrace. Two of its senior staff were economical with the truth at a tribunal, but they were neither fined nor fired. Good working practices are important for all staff, not just the men and women on the shop floor. How will "fairness at work" ensure that, when management misbehaves, it is fined? I await the Minister's comments with interest.
  Co Steel may find a new owner. I am reliably informed by one of the potential buyers that the sale document has more holes than the average colander. We need a buyer, but they are thin on the ground. I hope that, when the white knight arrives, he will make a charge against Co Steel's senior management.
  10.8 am
  Mr. David Prior: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) will know that I worked for British Steel during much of the 1980s. I must say that I found many of his comments utterly misleading.
  Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House in what capacity he worked at British Steel? I do not recall meeting him on the shop floor.
  Mr. Prior: My last job at British Steel was that of commercial director.

  1201
  In 1979, British Steel was completely uncompetitive. It had rotten industrial relations, and its products were of poor quality. By the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, it had been transformed into the most competitive steel company in the world. The hon. Gentleman ought to pay tribute to those who worked at British Steel, and to remember that that success was achieved under three successive Conservative Governments.
  I am going to be brief, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. There are three areas where the Government could do something tangible to help British Steel. The first is interest rates. I heard the hon. Member for Rotherham talking about the damage that exchange rate volatility can do to a company such as British Steel. I share some of those concerns, but, by pursuing high interest rates and giving independence to the Bank of England, his Government have increased the value of our currency above it should be. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not good enough for his Government to disclaim responsibility for interest rates.
  The second area where the Government can help is in a review of the pool. The pool works quite well for individual consumers, but clearly does not give the benefits it should to high energy users. British Steel is paying 15 or 20 per cent. more for its energy than its competitors in Europe. I hope that the Minister will introduce more competition into the pool. His policy of having a moratorium on gas-fired stations is wrong. We need more competition in energy generation.
  The third way in which the Government can do something tangible is anti-dumping. As the hon. Member for Rotherham pointed out, imports into Europe as a whole are some seven times what they were last year. That is having a damaging impact not just on British Steel, but on other European users. I hope that the Minister will take urgent, quick action to bring in anti-dumping measures.
  There was a period during the 1980s when it became fashionable to say that manufacturing did not matter. That was a very short period, but it did become fashionable. It is particularly sad that, under this Government, that attitude seems to be getting out again—that services matter, that somehow manufacturing does not matter, and to hell with British manufacturing.
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman might check how many times we have campaigned for, mentioned and highlighted the importance and vitality of manufacturing, compared with Lord Young, who said that manufacturing did not matter: let people in the manufacturing city of Leeds, my city, eat out, he suggested. We have changed that culture already.
  Mr. Prior: It is wrong for a Minister to say that, when manufacturing industry faces a severe recession. This is a recession that we cannot blame just on world markets and
  1202
  overseas events. This is largely a recession that has been manufactured by economic incompetence in your Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It is not my Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use correct parliamentary language.
  Mr. Prior: Yes.
  Mr. Frank Roy: Like the hon. Gentleman, I worked for British Steel in the 1970s and 1980s. In fact, I was still there in 1991, and I have to say that I never met him on the shop floor when I was in the melting shop working on the ladles. However, I am glad to hear him say that the Government were saying, "To hell with manufacturing." What would he have told my constituents when they were told in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s by his Government, "To hell with manufacturing and the steel industry in the Motherwell area"?
  Mr. Prior: I should like to conclude by saying that British Steel is a fine business. It is very competitive. It can hold its head up high throughout the world. It depends totally on a successful manufacturing base in this country, with a strong customer base. Manufacturing needs some help, and the Government are not giving it.
  10.12 am
  Ms Joan Walley: We have had a colourful, powerful, upbeat and far-ranging speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). I congratulate him on securing the debate, but it is important that all of us who have steel capacity in our localities be part of the new deal that he is now asking the Government to enter with British Steel. I speak just to put the case that, in north Staffordshire, we want to be part of that new deal for steel.
  I think it was four years ago—time flies so quickly in this place—that we had a real problem about increased capacity in Ireland, which had an extra subsidy. That issue was fought over in the House. It was crucial at that stage that we did everything we could to safeguard the capacity of British Steel to carry on manufacturing.
  Members of Parliament in north Staffordshire played a leading role in that. We got the overall capacity from elsewhere reduced. In that process, we maintained a part of British capacity. That was crucial. My reason for speaking now is to say that there have been huge improvements in British Steel manufacturing since then, but we do not want to lose it.
  In relation to the global economy, we are in a particularly vulnerable position. That is why it is so important that all of us here who care about steel in our constituencies give that message to the Minister with responsibility for industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), so that he knows that he has the support of all of us in the new deal that I hope he will be able to secure for steel.
  This is not just about the economy or industry, but about the environment, the negotiations that are about to start post-Kyoto, the changes that are taking place to utility regulation and the price of energy for intensive

  1203
  users of energy; therefore, through this debate, I want us to put all those issues on the table, so that we can continue to make the case for manufacturing in our constituencies.
  We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham about job losses at the Templeborough rolling mills. Every time we hear about job losses in British Steel, or are told that there are going to be more job losses because of the particular stage of the cycle that we are in, I get worried about potential job losses in north Staffordshire.
  I want the Government and British Steel to know that, between us, we will do everything to safeguard one of the best producing sites we have. I am talking, of course, about the British Steel Shelton site. It is producing 400,000 tonnes of steel per year. It has been doing that for the past five years, and is on target to produce the same amount this year.
  British Steel contributes 39,000 jobs throughout the United Kingdom. Obviously, the Shelton site is crucial to that. We have had investment from British Steel in Shelton. We have a new operating pulpit investment of £600,000. We are commissioning new marking and labelling machines to give the edge on customer service and control systems. There is also in progress an overall refurbishment of £1 million.
  Five years ago, we had a work force of around 400. Two years ago, we had a work force of 350, and currently we have a work force of 330. We want to keep that work force on that site.
  I pay tribute to the huge effort by the work force at Shelton in terms of team working, multi-skilling and work flexibility, all done with trade union agreement. The output in Shelton is second to none. As I hear hon. Members warning about the chill winds of the global recession and everything else, I want to safeguard those jobs in north Staffordshire, so that we can reward the enormous efforts by the team of dedicated workers there, bearing it in mind that we are an island site and, as a result, are particularly vulnerable to any additional pressures; such as the extra costs of transport are so great.
  I use this debate to remind British Steel and the government of all that. People in north Staffordshire are important. I use it to remind them of the part that we placed in the last battle, if you like, to maintain British Ste capacity.
  I ch on what my hon. Friend the Member for Rothe am said about the Governor of the Bank of England. The Minister will know, because he came to north Staffordshire only last month, how much the pottery industry in north Staffordshire relies on exports, and how important it is that we are innovative and make an upbeat contribution, but the same applies to steel production.
  If we bear it in mind that about 50 per cent. of British Steel production is exported and, of the remaining 50 per cent., a further 50 per cent. is exported, and we see what has happened to the Asian market and the collapse there, it is clear that there are difficulties and bumpy rides ahead. For that reason, I say to Eddie George, Governor of the Bank of England, "You cannot sacrifice manufacturing industry just for the service economy." Manufacturing is important. We make things in north Staffordshire, and we are proud of those things. The crucial point is that we do not want to be sacrificed for the wider economy.
  We are now at a critical stage, and I wanted to emphasise the importance of our manufactured goods, and of developing the partnership necessary to deal not only
  1204
  with environmental issues but with the international economy, so that we can ensure that British Steel workers in north Staffordshire, at the Shelton site, have a real future.
  10.19 am
  Mr. Alan Clark: This debate has provided a very good demonstration of the importance of our Wednesday morning Adjournment debates—which allow hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), to cite and bring to the House's attention monstrous cases of victimisation. It is an excellent thing that such issues should be raised in the Chamber.
  Today's debate has also allowed the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) to deal with an absolutely fundamental dilemma of economic policy that we find ourselves at liberty to digress upon all too seldom. In much of what he said, powerful argument was heavily interspersed with obligatory party political points and a good deal of confusion and hot air.
  Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with some expertise on that.
  Mr. Clark: Although many of us pride ourselves on that gift, hon. Members—Labour Members, too—have to try to cut through it.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham rightly drew attention to the scandal of the Governor of the Bank of England saying that we must tolerate unemployment in the manufacturing sector in order to control or moderate overheating in the service sector. I have foreshortened the Governor's argument, which is a familiar one—he was not the first person to articulate it. Greatly to the shame of the Conservative party, Conservative Members have in the past made the same case. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Lord Young, under whom I worked as a junior Minister. I drove that Department's officials mad by arguing the unfashionable case of protectionism, against the views of my own Secretary of State.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham also drew the House's attention to the fact that, although the Government have been in power for more than 18 months, they are, if anything, more in thrall now to the multinationals, the supranationals and the supermarkets, and to their friends in industry who are buying titles and subscribing to funds, than they were at the outset. They are certainly far more in thrall to them now than they were when they published the Labour party manifesto before the general election.
  It is no good saying that many of the seeds of damage were sown by the previous Government. The Labour party has been in power for more than 18 months, and it has intensified the close allegiance between the rip-off corporations and the Government, whose paymasters they are slowly becoming.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham dodged the main point. Although he made his case, which sounded fine, he would not arrive at his conclusion. He would not admit that no economy, least of all ours, is strong enough to pay both unemployment benefit to its own workers and the wages of manufacturing work forces in other countries that are dumping their products in the United Kingdom. Although he said that we have to be strong enough to resist dumping, he dodged the matters of the general

  1205
  agreement on tariffs and trade and our associations within the Community. Although he argues—his argument was veiled, but not very closely veiled—that some of our steel industry's problems would be cured if we were in the euro and worked closer with Europe, he knows perfectly well that that argument is utterly fraudulent. If anything, such actions would intensify the problems.
  The hon. Gentleman cited the example of Serbian steel being dumped in the United Kingdom. Such dumping provides the House with a classic example of the fact that, because of the damage that they have suffered, many sectors of our manufacturing industry need to be protected. I am one of the few hon. Members on either side of the House who is still not ashamed to argue the archaic but traditional Tory case that we should protect our manufacturing industry by using the various devices of Government—such as subsidy, taxation and import control—that we have used traditionally, and that many of our competitors still use. For some reason, we have had to discard such devices.
  I tell Labour Members that we must now realise what is at stake in the argument. Hon. Members, especially Labour Members—with their roots in constituencies that contain what is left of our manufacturing industry—must realise that a major choice will have to be made if, as all judges believe will happen, there is a major contraction in the world economy. The choice will be between the welfare of our constituents as producers and their welfare as consumers.
  For too long—for reasons of loyalty, doctrine or laziness—the House has swallowed arguments from Front Benchers on both sides of the House that we must now subscribe to the consumerist ethic, and that the service industries and the ephemeral earnings of show business, with all its shallowness and triviality, will support a major economy of 55 million people. How can such industries support our economy? Although we know that it is impossible for them to support our economy, we allow ourselves time and again to be sold the doctrine that they can.
  The choice will have to be made, and the impulse to make it will have to come from within the party in government. I tell Labour Members that I came into the Chamber to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham, whom I respect, and that my speech is entirely unprepared and extempore. Nevertheless, I hope very much that, in the course of time, within the next two years, there will be a real debate on the subject, and that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to give it their attention with proper and fully prepared speeches.
  10.26 am
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Before I speak to the subject of this debate, I should like briefly to mention one example of the steel industry's success in my constituency. Vauxhall Motors has not only just taken on 1,000 new employees but is producing the best selling car in Britain—the new Astra. Vauxhall's success is a credit to the partnership between industry and Government. The situation is therefore not entirely one of doom and gloom, as has been suggested by some hon. Members in this debate.
  1206
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), I should like to deal with one specific point. I also realise that I shall receive support from various Departments in dealing with some specific problems facing H. H. Robertsons, which closed just before the general election. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who was then the Department of Trade and Industry Minister with responsibility for competition, under whom an investigation was started by the Department's insolvency service, which subsequently involved the serious fraud squad and police.
  The background to the investigation was a £5 million deficit in the work force pension fund and a series of business actions resulting in moneys dripping out of the company, to the detriment of all creditors, especially the pension fund. Regrettably, because of the complexities of the matter and the way in which the Companies Acts are structured, the Serious Fraud Office has been unable to produce a case that it believes would stand up in a fraud trial. I believe that a case has not been made, not because the SFO is happy with events, but because of the very clever way in which the money was used.
  The matter is currently being dealt with by the pensions ombudsman. Earlier this week, I had an exchange with the Secretary of State for Social Security on that point.
  I should put in context the closure of H. H. Robertsons, which was a very important steel works. Ellesmere Port was a steel manufacturing town, and subsequently has become a petrochemical town. It began producing steel at the turn the century, when the work force of the then Wolverhampton Iron Works walked up the canals to gain jobs at the new plant. The plant survived for the best part of 100 years, but then, after some very interesting financial manoeuvres, it disappeared. That was a tragedy, not only for the town and the people who worked at the plant, but for the credibility of an important part of British industry.
  I want to put three points to the Government in the context of the inquiries that must continue. I appreciate that the first is not within the remit of my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, but I make a general plea to the Government to work with me and with all the parties involved to find a rescue package for the pension fund of the plant. The state is paying a significant sum in benefits, so it would be helpful if we could find a way to rescue the fund.
  Secondly, I should like the Government to examine carefully the way in which the Companies Acts have been used in this particular case, and the effects of their structure on the ability of the work force to get a clear picture of what has happened. Even the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), cannot get hold of the full report from the Serious Fraud Office, which is a bizarre state of affairs.
  Finally, when the company was taken over—something on which the pension fund members were not consulted—the pension fund was in deficit. Because of the refinancing of the company, pension fund members automatically became lower-ranking creditors than the people who allegedly invested in the company. The exposure of the pension fund increased as a result of the vehicle that was used to refinance the company. That is a ludicrous state of affairs, which can no longer be allowed to occur under British law.

  1207
  There needs to be a great deal of close co-operation between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Social Security and the Treasury. I should be extremely grateful if the Minister would reaffirm the Government's commitment to work with me and the ex-employees of the company in an attempt to get justice for them.
  10.31 am
  Mr. John Healey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on securing the debate, and on arguing his case so powerfully. He brings a worldwide view to the subject. I cannot compete with that, so I shall not try. Instead, I want to examine the local scene and make a plea to the Minister for practical help in dealing with some of the fallout of the problems that my hon. Friend outlined.
  The British Steel Engineering Steels plant in Alwarke is in my constituency, as is the Thrybergh rolling mill. Many constituents also work at Kvaerner and Avesta and in other small steel plants throughout Rotherham and Sheffield. They feel a growing sense of dismay and desperation. They are doing all they can, often led by their union, to help their companies succeed and to become internationally competitive, but the firms are then hit by forces well beyond their control.
  Steve Shaw is typical. He lives in Rawmarsh in my constituency, and works at Avesta in Sheffield. He, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation branch secretary and other colleagues have been heavily involved in work force and management partnerships in the past five years to introduce new shift patterns, new working teams and new levels of productivity and profitability. However, in the summer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, the firm announced plans to close the mill and move the Sheffield order book to Sweden with the loss of 100 jobs and 100 family incomes.
  I regret to say that Avesta is only one of a string of steel companies instituting closures and cuts. Even BSES, a world-class and internationally competitive company, is reducing capacity. However, it is still holding on to its work force, still investing and still looking to the upturn, but the danger lies with downstream companies in South Yorkshire. It lies with the damage that is already in the system but which is still to work through. Supply chains are long, especially in engineering steels.
  The local challenge is to do what we can to help people living with the threat of redundancy. In Rotherham, we have pragmatism and resilience, and a proud track record of partnership involving organisations responding to such problems. That has been the root of our recent regeneration efforts, and it is the reason that we want pathfinder area status for Rotherham and the pilot scheme for the new deal for the over-25s.
  Although I welcome the efforts of the Minister and his colleagues to set up a rapid response team in the Department of Trade and Industry, and while I applaud the efforts of similar rapid response teams in the borders and in the north-east to deal with large-scale company closures, Rotherham already has such an operation in place. It has an effective partnership to tackle the immediate problems of retraining and resettlement for steel workers who are losing their jobs. It is called Steel Partnership Training, and is based on co-operation nationally between the ISTC, SteelAction and Most
  1208
  Training. With support from the Rotherham ChamberTec and Rotherham council and, crucially, the Employment Service, it has secured RESIDER funding to pay for training for 100 redundant steel workers and those threatened with redundancy.
  We are now looking for a further £45,000 to double the number of people with whom we can deal. That money lies in the RESIDER programme funds, and I urge the Minister to help to fast track our bid to secure that cash because we can then match it from other sources. If we can fast release these funds, action can be taken while workers are still on notice rather than on the dole. If we can secure the funds, in the midst of the maelstrom that is today's global economy, the Government can help individuals whose lives have been overturned by events that are well beyond their control and that of their company.
  10.36 am
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on bringing this subject to the House on a Wednesday morning, but, having spent my whole life in manufacturing, I must deplore some of his comments about the previous Government.
  After I left university and before I entered the House, I spent my time in industry, making things and selling them abroad. There was a revolution in Britain during that time, led by British Steel in particular. It was sad that, when my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) said that he had worked for British Steel, he was laughed at. It was a team effort; surely the old class warfare has gone. We need people with skills on the shop floor, and we need people with my hon. Friend's skills in management—that was why the privatised British Steel was such a success.
  The revolution liberated the country from the burdens of a rigged labour market that had the law behind it. Corporate taxation was dramatically reduced, which is a lesson that this Government should not forget, to levels that made it worth while staying in this country and investing here, and which brought the extraordinary tide of inward investment that has led to an extra 1 million firms being created. However, I have only three minutes left, so I shall be brief.
  It was extraordinary that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) led an attack on Eddie George, who is in charge of the Bank of England, when he wants to join the euro. If the Chancellor wants to get rid of Eddie George, it is at least in his power to do so. If we joined the euro, we could never get rid of Mr. Duisenberg. We should be just one little voice, one of a dozen.
  I find it extraordinary that, after the disaster of the exchange rate mechanism, for which our party has apologised but for which the Labour and Liberal parties have not, the Labour party wishes to put itself in a concrete box when it comes to exchange rates, so that a small, unelected group of people whom we can never remove will decide interest rates and exchange rates that will hit the work force of Rotherham.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham cast some aspersions on the framework of shareholder capitalism which has proved successful in the western world, but he did not come up with an alternative.

  1209
  The hon. Gentleman referred to a Government partnership, but, as far as I could tell, that boiled down to an exchange of information and a plea for funds to help with redundancies. Was he hinting that the Government should take back shareholdings in companies such as British Steel, or that a Government bank should be set up to provide soft loans? What is the Government partnership that the hon. Gentleman was talking about? There was also some knockabout stuff criticising shareholder capitalism, which brought so much prosperity to the western world and whose absence caused so much catastrophe in eastern Europe.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham also mentioned unmanaged trade flows, and made some dangerous comments about dumping. Having spent much of my career exporting and importing, I am extremely alarmed by some of the noises being made here today. I include in that the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), who I know believes in trade blocs.
  In the 1920s and 1930s, there was a catastrophic shrinking of world trade by the raising of import barriers. I have spent much of my life battling to open up foreign markets to goods in my industry, with the help of European partners. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will be looking to open up another GATT round? The previous Government played a heroic role in getting important duties reduced around the world, and the Uruguay round was crowned by the establishment of the World Trade Organisation.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham was absolutely right to mention Serbian steel, which I expect receives huge Government subsidies. Will the Minister tell us today that Britain will be leading the way in demanding another GATT round?
  Finally, on energy, in the relaxed atmosphere of today's Adjournment debate, will the Minister answer the question that I have asked him twice before at Question Time? What leads Government energy policy? Is it the cheapest possible energy which will give the workers of Rotherham a chance to compete in the world, is it his own old commitment to the producer interests and protecting jobs, or is it Kyoto and keeping the world clean? Will the Minister think carefully, and give me a straight answer?
  10.41 am
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on securing today's Adjournment debate. We have had a serious and sombre discussion of an important topic, in which hon. Members have brought their particular concerns about the current position of the steel industry to the attention of the House. Behind it, however, stalks the wider agenda of what the Victorians would have called political economy, and those points were interestingly rehearsed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), who takes a very clear view, which I do not share, but which we should consider.
  The steel industry is an excellent industry, which has reformed itself out of all recognition, but it is in real difficulties. Despite those difficulties, there is a positive undertow, and a wish on all sides that it should succeed. Although nobody talks now about the commanding
  1210
  heights of the economy, steel remains extremely important. British Steel alone employs nearly 40,000 people, and, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) said, there is a huge downstream, which reaches even into constituencies such as mine, in fabrication, processing and stockholding. So there is a very large multiplier, and the industry remains central to our economy, just as—as I have always believed—manufacturing is a vital part of our economy.
  The investment programme is exemplary, representing some £350 million a year for the industry as a whole. It has enabled us to move from commodity steel to specialist steel, while supplying across the range. It has resulted in a much better productivity record than the British average on manufacturing industry. It shows, for example, that the cost of making steel in 1998 is the same as it was in 1990, which is pretty good considering the lapse of time. It shows that exports have increased from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. of output and that we are a world player. British Steel is arguably second, third or fourth in the world, depending on the particular year.
  Yet, despite what I readily acknowledge has been achieved by the industry, its employees and its unions, there is a problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), with his direct experience of the industry, said, had we not privatised the industry, its circumstances would not have enabled it to put its house in order. It continues to do that, as it cannot be a one-off but requires a continuing programme, yet the breakthrough to continuing success eludes it for some other reason embedded in what we have been saying about political economy.
  I would quarrel with one or two remarks by the hon. Member for Rotherham. In particular, for new Labour he took an uncharacteristically churlish view of the role of profits and the importance of the share price. Despite the market operation to which he referred, the share price of British Steel has reduced by something like 80 per cent. reducing market capitalisation. If the share price is not buoyant, it will be more difficult to raise capital in future.
  So there is an underlying problem, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. I have a fellow feeling with one or two hon. Members on both sides in relation to exchange rate policies, particularly monetary policy. As the hon. Member for Rotherham was speaking—and I did not have the facility to check—I wondered whether he had voted against the Bank of England Act 1998, as I did. I know that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who are in their places, also voted against it.
  Frankly, Labour Members have wished the problem on themselves. They opted for a strict monetary policy, possibly to restrain themselves from the temptations of inflation. That has had direct effects on the exchange rate, which in turn have had direct effects on manufacturing industry, particularly the steel sector. British Steel's briefing, prepared some months ago, said rather eloquently:
  "No-one disputes that the control of UK inflation by the blunt instrument of six interest rate increases since May 1997"—
  one of those has since been rescinded—
  "has continued to impact with disproportionate severity on Britain's manufacturing sector (where inflationary pressures are, in contrast to much of the services sector, negligible)."
  There we have it. It has made a huge difference, and has been accompanied by the Chancellor's increases in taxation, his attacks on savings and the impact on

  1211
  company pension plans that has yet to be fully realised. British Steel spends about £60 million a year on its pension fund. It will not have its new actuarial valuation until next year, but that will impact directly on what has to be provided.
  Although the industry is doing well, the exchange rate is fighting and frustrating improvement, making it difficult for the steel industry to trade. When Labour Members say, sometimes from the Front Bench, that some of the exchange rate appreciation took place under the previous Conservative Government, one has to make the point that the bid at the margin has run back in the past couple of months, yet the prospect for manufacturing industry continues to deteriorate. For example, three mills shut recently.
  It may not all be the fault of the Government. They cannot be held to blame for the problems in the Korean economy and the flood of steel from Asia. Whether or not it is dumped is a matter for the European authorities to examine. However, we can blame the Government not only for their failures in macroeconomic policy, but for their determination to ratchet up the cost of British industry at a difficult time, making it even less competitive, despite the problems that hon. Members have identified.
  Let me single out two issues within my remit and responsibility. The first relates to employment costs, where there is a whole package of measures, including the working time directive, the minimum wage and the fairness at work proposals. One could fairly say that the Government used the engineering industry almost as a template for the introduction of the minimum wage. As they said, not many people pay that little in engineering, but, as we now know, with outsourcing, many other industries feed into the steel sector, both as customers and as suppliers and sources of services to the industry.
  The costs that will come through such packages will have an impact not just on the service industries—once memorably called, in another forgotten phrase, the "candy-floss economy"—but on the real world of manufacturing industry.
  Mr. Paterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that none of the measures introduced by the Government has made the customers of British Steel in this country more competitive, and that there should be a ban on any further moves that would increase the costs of small businesses?
  Mr. Boswell: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.
  The energy sector is important. It is no good saying, "We have got to do Kyoto," without considering the gas industry. The Government have shown that they are not prepared to encourage gas-fired power to help us to meet the Kyoto targets, so further strain will be put on the rest of manufacturing industry, which will be required to cut its emissions. There is a cost and an environmental impact.
  As shown by this morning's news about Rover—a major steel user—the alarm bells in manufacturing industry are ringing. The Minister must reassure us that he is not heading straight for the iceberg.
  10.50 am
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. John Battle): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) for introducing the debate. For anyone
  1212
  who says that economic debate has left the Chamber, today's example of the use of parliamentary time has been superlative. We have started a debate here. I am delighted that manufacturing is again being debated in the Chamber. I say "again", because I led a debate on manufacturing. One of the commentators on "Question Time" the other night said that my town of Leeds was an old textile town. It is not. Leeds has been in engineering for the whole of the 20th century. That is the key to my constituency and my city.
  The Government are committed to manufacturing, engineering and technology. I was asked whether we were committed to investing in excellence in manufacturing. For most of my life, I have been fed up with hearing manufacturing referred to as if it were a 19th-century practice. The technology, innovation, imagination and creativity in British manufacturing belong in the 21st century. We will champion those industries.
  I should like to say a positive word about the importance of steel as an economic force in its own right. We have to confront economic pressures and issues related to skills, training, unfair dumping and the reform of the pool to deal with artificially high electricity prices. I want to respond as positively as I can to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham's proposal for a round table.
  I do not have time to respond to all the points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) referred to H. H. Robertsons. I know that he has had meetings with Ministers. I shall take that forward in the light of his comments this morning. I shall also look into the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) about "Fairness at Work".
  In the past year, I have attended meetings of the group of steel Members of Parliament, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, and visited steel companies. Those meetings, in which the ISTC and Steel Action are often involved, have been positive and helpful in difficult circumstances, and serve as a model of how to proceed.
  I should like to keep emphasising that we attach great importance to our manufacturing industry. Some 4 million people work in manufacturing. It is important also because of its innovation, its generation of new technologies and the fact that its output is still one fifth of gross domestic product. Manufacturing is how we will make our future.
  I do not want the north to be set against the south—manufacturing against services. We should be looking for integration, accepting that both sectors are vital. I recognise the major role of the steel industry and its products in underpinning almost all manufacturing. Steel is not just a material—it is an economic force.
  I should like to mention briefly the development of world-class, lightweight, stronger materials for the automotive industry, including new products such as the ultra-light steel auto body project. Later today, I shall be at the motor show in Birmingham, where I shall visit the British Steel stand to see its contribution to technology, industry and the economy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham talked about clusters of economic success. We should focus on them more readily. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and others praised those who work in the industry, who are the reason why

  1213
  it is one of the cleanest, most innovative and efficient steel industries in the world. In the past 20 years, productivity has risen more than fourfold, while the amount of energy needed to produce a tonne of steel has been reduced by about one third. Our productivity compares favourably with that of Japan and the United States. The steel industry's export performance is still remarkable by any standards.
  However, as has rightly been stressed during the debate, we must face economic realities, and recognise that current economic conditions are difficult. The current difficulties in the world economy show the importance of pursuing policies that help us to steer a course of domestic economic stability. The Government are taking action to build a stable economy capable of sustained and steady growth, allowing businesses to move ahead with confidence, in contrast to the boom-and-bust, stop-go economics of the 1980s and early 1990s, when interest rates reached 15 per cent. and more than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost. It is worth reminding ourselves of that occasionally. We are working hard to sort out the mess that we inherited.
  I recognise that the strength of sterling and the financial difficulties in Asia and Russia are causing particular difficulties for manufacturers and exporters, particularly the steel industries. We have to take the long-term view, not let short-term pressures lead us back to the policies that produced the boom and bust of the past. The short-term fixes of the previous Administration did not work. We are laying the foundations for economic growth by putting economic management on to a more stable, long-term footing. We are encouraging investment and productivity growth and helping people from welfare to work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) said.
  Global forecasts are being revised down across the world. One quarter of the world, including Japan, is in recession, and no country is immune from the current instability in the world economy. We must ensure that we do not go back to protectionism, and that world markets are kept open. We need openness and transparency in financial transactions, with proper supervision and regulation.
  More positively, we are also addressing the fundamental structural weaknesses that have held the economy back. It is appropriate that the university for industry, which focuses on re-skilling during a person's working life, is to be located in Sheffield. I think that that was announced this morning, and I can confirm it.
  1214
  I also praise the steel industry's excellent training record. One of the keys to competitiveness is skills training. Intensive investment in training has played a major part in the success of the steel industry. British Steel continues to invest heavily, providing significant amounts of training to ensure that all staff have the necessary skills. The industry was one of the first to have its national training organisation recognised by the Department for Education and Employment when NTOs were introduced in 1997.
  British Steel has understood the need for training in a way that other industries have not. It is a model of how to proceed. British Steel has also understood that exporting is not simply a matter of selling products cheaply. Success requires investment in innovation, efficiency and training.
  We have to get the framework right. We are working on building partnerships with the steel industry, as with other manufacturers. The agenda includes science, engineering and technology, the spread of innovation, new processes and new ways of doing things, the availability of finance for investment in research and development and the creation of a culture that builds on and uses the new knowledge-driven economies, integrating new technologies and telecommunications as a means of revitalising our manufacturing base.
  Our commitment to that partnership includes taking an active part in defending the steel industry from illegal trade practices, unfair competition and illegal subsidies to its competitors. Where such practices are shown to exist, we shall campaign rigorously on behalf of the industry, and will represent it.
  As I said in an intervention, we are tackling the wholesale market, which is a complex business. Electricity prices are determined by a pool. We have got on with tackling the matter; we asked the regulator to look at it. He has reported and we have accepted the broad shape of his response. We are pressing the regulator and a team of people on the issue. The regulator has appointed a person radically to overhaul the pool mechanism, to ensure that electricity prices for industry are brought down and it is not priced out by artificially high prices. The industry is, of course, regulated, so capping is a matter for the regulator, whom the Government do not tell directly what to do.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham that the regulator—the director general—is closely monitoring developments. If it appears that prices are rising without good reason, arrangements can be reconsidered. We shall keep an eye on that. On average—I know that it is not fair on the steel industry to say this—price pressure will be downwards.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must turn to the next debate.

  Parliament and Politics (BBC Coverage)
  11 am
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this subject. I recall that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who opened the previous debate, secured a debate on the BBC's obligations to Parliament on 11 March. It is largely in that context that I shall draw attention to yet another development in the relationship between the BBC and the House.
  I suspect that, regardless of whatever else appears on BBC television and radio reports this evening, there will be no report of this debate. The corporation is extremely embarrassed by its failure to fulfil its public service broadcasting commitments to give proper emphasis to Parliament's role in the political life of the nation. In the past few days, I have been subjected to a stream of letters and memoranda—I suspect that other hon. Members have, too—which betray the BBC's embarrassment and defensive posture.
  Hon. Members will recall the dumbing down of Radio 4, including the exile of "Today in Parliament", "Yesterday in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster" to relatively inaccessible times and wavelengths. That was the theme of the debate secured by the hon. Member for Rotherham on 11 March.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I feel that I cannot take part in a second Adjournment debate today, so I beg hon. Members to excuse my absence from a debate on an issue that is dear to me. I support the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Has he seen the remarkable quotation from Miss Polly Toynbee, who said when "Yesterday in Parliament" was booted off "Today" that it was a jolly good thing because everyone was fed up with hearing Members of Parliament on that programme? Now she has recanted and said that "Today" after 8.30 am has become incredibly boring and that please could the voices of distinguished Back Benchers, such as those present—excluding myself—be heard once again. I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his debate.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who is present. I hope that hon. Members have seen his early-day motion on the subject.
  The fears that were expressed in March about the treatment of parliamentary proceedings by Radio 4 have been entirely justified. We have already been forewarned that audience figures, which are coming out this week, will show that not only we, but much more importantly, the listeners, think that the BBC was wrong to replace a debate between parliamentarians with some insipid discussion in the studio. That has proved a disaster.
  I note with interest that, in pointing out the hits and misses of Radio 4's changes, yesterday's edition of The Independent identified specifically such final-section debates on "Today" between 8.30 and 9 am—when we used to attract a very good audience. Those ratings appear to have collapsed. We shall no doubt hear from Mr. James Boyle later this week about how disastrous his changes have been. If they are as disastrous as has been widely forecast, I hope that, in the best traditions of the corporation, his resignation offer will shortly be on the director general's desk.
  1216
  Since such events, there has been a further slaughter of the BBC's coverage of the House. At the very end of July, when there were but two days before the summer recess, it announced some further major cuts. Until July, in addition to the political teams located in each distinct part of the United Kingdom, a dedicated journalist worked full time at the Millbank studios to ensure that every relevance of Parliament to each region was identified, reported and explained. Members of all parties—Back Benchers and Front Benchers—benefited from their special knowledge, professionalism and close liaison with our work in this place. Most importantly, listeners and viewers received the service for which they were paying.
  On 29 July—immediately before the summer recess—Members of Parliament received a letter from the BBC outlining the proposed changes. The letter stated that the BBC was recruiting
  "ten political editors, one for each region in England … able to lead the way in person across all our outlets—regional television, local radio and regional text services.
  Regional Political Editors will split their time between their regional centres and London, working out of the BBC offices in Millbank, when Parliament is sitting.
  We will maintain a team of political journalists to back them up, based full time at Millbank as now, as well as our current local radio political staff in London."
  Mrs. Ray Michie: Since my hon. Friend is referring to regions in England, I should like to draw his attention to what is happening in Scotland—which is not, of course, a region. Does he agree that the BBC's reported reluctance to allow Scotland to carry its own 6 o'clock news is contrary to the spirit of devolution and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament next year? Does he agree that that will be seen as a slap in the face for BBC Scotland and its well-produced programmes and quality staff, and will paint the British Broadcasting Corporation as yet another London-based, domineering control machine?
  Mr. Tyler: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I come from another Celtic country—although we in Cornwall do not aspire to nationhood in quite the same way—and can tell her that we feel exactly the same. The steps that have been taken not only cut costs but are an attempt to metropolitanise the BBC, which is completely contrary to its charter responsibilities.
  I return to the explanation given to Members of Parliament in July and the letter that was sent to us. The letter purported to suggest that there would be an improvement in regional coverage of Parliament. It said, for example:
  "This important development can only be for the good. It will put in place a more effective system of political coverage and one with which you … will find easier to liaise.
  It will ensure major political regional developments are covered more comprehensively, with greater authority, and that the information reaches our regional and local centres quickly, and from there to our listeners and viewers".
  That is wishful thinking. The new arrangements, as they have been set out, can only be to the detriment of the BBC's regional coverage and will not offer viewers and listeners the quality of output to which we have become accustomed.
  The timing of the announcement was exceptionally reminiscent of the worst media management of successive Ministers. The BBC set out plans for parliamentary

  1217
  coverage just as the House was rising for the summer and, indeed, as its staff were leaving Millbank to do jobs in other parts of the country, or to go on holiday. In a letter to Ariel, the BBC's in-house magazine, members of the National Union of Journalists and the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union—BECTU—wrote:
  "The announcement that the regional political editor's post and that of the regional Westminster correspondent were to be scrapped and replaced by a new post seems to have been timed deliberately to forestall discussion by both staff and MPs, coming as it did three days before the summer recess, just as all concerned were leaving for their summer holidays."
  Those very astute political observers have spotted that their own bosses have been playing the games of media manipulation that we are used to from Ministers.
  The claim that those cuts will strengthen political coverage is, in my view, deliberately misleading. I can imagine what Lord Reith would say about it. The 10 dedicated political correspondents based full-time at Westminster are to be replaced by four hard-pressed journalists trying to cover the whole United Kingdom. How does that strengthen the BBC's coverage of Parliament and politics?
  Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) went to Millbank for an interview, only to be confronted by utter chaos. If other hon. Members have been over there in the past two or three days, they will know that the place is rundown, and depressed and dispirited as a result. No one seemed to know what was going on, and no one had any knowledge of the area.
  BBC journalists themselves—we must assume that they are of the highest possible calibre, because the BBC management keeps telling us that they are—have today issued Members with a National Union of Journalists brief from its chapel about the debate:
  "The BBC is representing this change as an 'enhancement' of regional political coverage. This is not the case. What the BBC failed to point out, in its letter to MPs last July, is that the 10 existing posts of Westminster Correspondents, based at 4, Millbank have been abolished. They will be replaced, eventually, by a team of four journalists at Millbank, working in support of the Regional Editors. They will not represent any particular region, and therefore will not be able to maintain individual contact with the region's MPs.
  The BBC sought to give the impression that the new Political Editors would be working from Westminster during Parliamentary term time. This is not the case. With their commitments in their regions, and taking into account travelling time, it is unlikely that they will be able to pay more than occasional visits to Westminster. Also, the facilities available to them at Westminster will be cut back. Coverage of Parliament is therefore bound to suffer.
  The BBC says it wants to base coverage of politics in the regions themselves. We feel, with one person expected to cover politics from both ends of the country simultaneously, coverage will inevitably suffer. The NUJ believes this to be a cost-cutting exercise".
  As a former member of the NUJ, I regard that as an accurate and level-headed account that in no way exaggerates the situation.
  As for the claim that the appointment of political journalists in each region will offer us all a one-stop shop for contact—
  Mr. David Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene now. I apologise for the fact that I have to be somewhere else
  1218
  shortly, but I am pleased to be here for his speech. Does he agree—the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting may or may not agree, but even if she does she is hardly likely to say so—that the chaos at the BBC has reached such a state that the director general and the chairman should consider their position?
  Do not the developments in regional reporting that the hon. Gentleman is eloquently describing, stem largely from the way in which the BBC has done its best to undermine the national reporting of Parliament? "Yesterday in Parliament", which we have debated several times, provides an example. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the BBC is treating Parliament with utter contempt?
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has long experience of such matters, and I think that he will agree that the present situation is unprecedented. Indeed, the appearance of BBC representatives before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport yesterday confirmed that there has been a major breakdown in Parliament's confidence in the way in which the corporation is run. I should add that I spoke to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), yesterday, and he wished to be here for the debate but cannot attend. I think that he too would endorse our views.
  I shall use my region, the south-west, to illustrate the way in which the rundown of our service is likely to affect the quality of the output of the BBC. We already have in the region an excellent and experienced political editor. There is no change in that respect, no improvement. How can that man be expected to be in Plymouth and Westminster at the same time, and to cover late-breaking stories—a familiar experience in both places? Indeed, late-breaking stories are an experience with which every hon. Member will be familiar, because they happen in all parts of the country. It is beyond me that such an arrangement should be even contemplated, let alone attempted.
  It takes about four and a half hours for the political editor to travel from the studio in Plymouth to the studio in Westminster. Within that time, even with modern communications—especially as Great Western Trains seems to be conspiring to try to make the time even longer, and most of the line seems to be out of contact for mobile telephones—he cannot keep abreast of developments in this place day by day and hour by hour, let alone minute by minute.
  Stories break suddenly, as we all know, and events take place that are of great significance to our constituents. Such is life in politics. I fear that all too often, when something is happening in the south-west, the editor will be on a train, or here, and that when something is happening here, he will be on a train, or in the region. That is inevitable. Even when he appears at Westminster, he will have to compete at the Millbank studios with nine other editors, and the resident journalists, for three or four desks and a limited number of camera crews.
  The whole operation is being run down to danger point, and starved of the necessary resources. Even if we are lucky and the political editor is at Westminster and available for an interview, there is no guarantee that he will have the facilities and the support crew that he needs.
  Such practical concerns have not been thoroughly thought through by management, despite the long time for which they have been gestated. No one has explained

  1219
  convincingly to me or to anyone else in this place, or to the staff of the BBC, how the logistics of the new operation will work.
  It is by no means clear what the four full-time journalists—the quartet who are left of the original 10—will do. So few people cannot be expected to keep in contact with all 659 Members of Parliament, let alone people in the other place, and their own regional political editors. There will be no specialisation, and no geographical or regional expertise available either to the regional editors or to ourselves.
  Both radio and television coverage of Parliament will undoubtedly suffer as a result. I am especially concerned about the effects on Back Benchers. The parties, and certainly the Government, have access to a huge number of opportunities to ensure that their views are broadcast—and don't we all know it. For Back Benchers, however, making connections and forming a continuing professional relationship with a journalist who knows something about our constituencies and our regions is crucial.
  I suspect that the BBC is once again, perhaps unconsciously, playing into the hands of the Government. It is the official view from Downing street and Whitehall that is most likely to be heard, rather than the views of Members, in all parts of the House, who may take a differing view.
  Under the old regime, until the end of July, all Back Benchers had to do was contact somebody whom we already knew in Millbank to organise a discussion of the issues of the day. We could feel confident that he or she would know the background and something about our area, our constituencies and our special interests. He or she would also be aware of what was happening here, and its relevance to what was happening in the region. The connections would be made; one did not have to give a long explanation of where Cornwall is, or why Scotland is important. The journalist would already know; that would be part of the job. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives discovered yesterday, if one goes to the studios now, there is no guarantee that there will be anyone there who knows anything about our activities either here or in the region.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) first heard about the proposals, independently of my own representations he wrote to the BBC as follows:
  "We also have a dedicated political correspondent at Westminster … This person is the one that we would deal with on a daily basis. I regularly see him about the House of Commons, we exchange political information in that form, he is always available on the 'phone when stories are breaking, he can be relied on to see what is going on in The Gallery so I do not have to inform him every time I make an intervention or a speech, and most important he is well aware of the developing stories in the South West, their origin and the way in which they look like developing for the future."
  Every hon. Member here will have a similar experience, and will be able to say that in the past the BBC has been able to take the temperature in the House in a reasonably effective way.
  Most important of all, the BBC has failed to consult the House, either through individual Members of Parliament or through the House authorities. I know that Madam Speaker has made direct representations to the chairman of the BBC in the past about the lack of consultation, and
  1220
  I believe that the timing of the announcement at the end of July showed what the BBC thinks of her, of the House and of us as Members of it.
  In my role shadowing the Leader of the House for my party, I have come across no one who shares the view that this move will—in the words of the BBC—
  "put in place a more effective system of political coverage."
  I find no one who thinks that Members of Parliament will find it easier to liaise. I find no one who thinks that it will ensure that major political and regional developments are covered more comprehensively. Quite the contrary; everyone to whom I have spoken, in all parties, regards the proposals—on top of the other earlier reductions in the quality and accessibility of our coverage this year—as yet more dumbing down of Parliament and politics.
  This morning, a publication entitled "Our Commitment to You: The BBC's Statement of Promises to Viewers and Listeners" arrived on my desk. Other Members may have seen it. I have looked through it quickly, and the word "Parliament" does not appear in the publication's 24 pages. Indeed, I can find no reference to politics or political activity. It is as though the BBC is saying that this place does not matter, and it is an insult that it should send such material at this time.
  Mr. Richard Spring: If the hon. Gentleman were to look carefully in the section detailing the specific promises for this year, he would find that under No. 5—this may be the nearest we get to politics—the BBC promises to
  "devise programmes which respond to devolution and political change in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has examined the document with even more care than me. However, I believe that I am right in saying that the word "Parliament" does not appear—not even in the context of the Scottish Parliament.
  Quite apart from the BBC's intention, there is continuing confusion about the planned level of staffing. Since the original letter to which I have referred—sent on 28 July to Members of Parliament—the BBC has clearly panicked. Even after the limited response that the BBC received during the parliamentary recess from Members of Parliament, it panicked in the face of the immediate and unanimous concerns that were voiced. The latest briefing that I have been sent claims:
  "there is the option—still the subject of negotiation—of having up to nine full-time regional correspondents, albeit on a lower grade."
  That has just popped out of the air in the past few days. It may be that, for once, someone is listening to Members of Parliament. I hope so, because this is a serious issue.
  We do not know whether this move is all part of a ratings war with ITV, satellite and cable, or just a cost-cutting exercise to feed the voracious appetite of the coming digital revolution. Journalists believe it is the latter; I believe it may be a combination of the two.
  If the BBC does not take Parliament seriously, why should we support the continuation of the licence fee? If it does not take us seriously, why should we take it seriously? Whatever else may happen, the BBC will still look to us to support it when the charter and licence arrangements are reviewed in the next few months. The chairman, governors and top management should be

  1221
  warned that Parliament will not take seriously their efforts to persuade us to recognise their public service role if they continue to undervalue Parliament.
  The BBC's war of attrition in terms of its coverage of our affairs must end if the corporation is to continue to enjoy special privileges. If it cannot guarantee effective parliamentary and political reportage at all levels, it cannot claim to remain Britain's national broadcaster, and it must give way to someone else.
  I believe, as do Members of Parliament and most members of the public, that Parliament is still the heart of our democratic system. The Speaker has warned the BBC on a number of occasions that it is out of touch with opinion here and in the country if it fails to recognise that. I hope that it heeds that warning before it is too late.
  11.23 am
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on gaining this Adjournment debate on an important subject. The hon. Gentleman referred to the early-day motion that I managed to table on the last day before the long summer recess. The subject of it was brought to my attention by someone who knew what was happening in the BBC; we were not privy to that.
  I am sure that Members will understand how difficult it is on the last day before the recess—indeed, the last afternoon—to get six Members of Parliament together, explain to them what is going on, win their trust and get them to put their signatures to an early-day motion. I am delighted that I was able to do so on an all-party basis. It is important that Members of all parties in the House believe that regional input into what we do here is important.
  In my view, the three most important words in terms of the BBC are "public service obligation". The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned the licence fee. We must justify why we tax every household in the land—I assume most have television sets—to the tune of £100 for the licence fee for the BBC, which will go up.
  In her previous exalted position on the Opposition Back Benches, the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting said that the BBC ought to do a lot more to offer pensioners a reduced licence fee. Since she has got into a position to do something about it, she has changed her position somewhat. Perhaps we will hear something from her about that matter later. However, we thought that the licence fee bore heavily upon certain licence payers.
  The Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The hon. Gentleman will know that it is our intention to set up a panel next year to review the BBC licence fee. We have made it plain in correspondence with hon. Members from all parties that that review will include a detailed consideration of the current arrangements for licence fee concessions.
  Mr. Evans: I am delighted to learn that—it may be breaking news. All Members of Parliament get constituents at our surgeries who find it difficult to understand why some obtain a concession down to being
  1222
  charged £5 for the licence fee while others in similar circumstances do not. The BBC will be listening carefully to what the Minister has said.
  Since the early-day motion was tabled, we have been privy to information from the BBC. I have read carefully what the BBC's Michael Hastings has had to say. He is a great man but he is trying to justify the unjustifiable, although I am sure that the matter has just landed on his plate. I suspect that he had as little consultation on the re-arrangement of regional reporting as we had—which, of course, was little to none. However, his justification is pretty thin.
  The BBC has already tried to marginalise the House of Commons through the changes to "Yesterday in Parliament". We were all told what a great thing that would be—we would have a much longer programme. However, the reality is that fewer people are able to listen to it. We were told that people did not want to listen because we were all boring and that they were switching off. I could imagine that some people may think us boring, but it could also have had something to do with the time of the programme. People were going to work and doing other things, and they were not able to sit and listen to it. Therefore, fewer people were able to our listen directly to our quotes on "Yesterday in Parliament."
  People could argue that a wide choice is now available, with more channels and digital television. Yesterday saw the launch of BBC Parliament, the running channel made available on cable, satellite and digital on which people will be able to see non-stop coverage of the House of Commons. Few are able to see what is going on in the House of Commons currently, and the change is taking place now.
  The suspicion might be that all the changes at the BBC—such as the enormous investment in the internet, which has produced some superb pages, and all the extra channels going on to digital—are costing a lot of money. The BBC is cash-limited by the licence fee, and it cannot take advertising. It is limited in terms of how it can raise revenue. One way it can do so is by chopping back and by saving money elsewhere. The BBC is saving money at the expense of the reporting of regional aspects of what is happening at Westminster.
  As has been said, Front-Bench Members have enormous opportunities to be on the news at 1 o'clock and 9 o'clock and to be on various other radio stations throughout the day. They get a good hit at such broadcasting. Also, all our front players have the opportunity to appear on "On the Record". Regional reporting is completely different and it gives us an opportunity to air what we are doing here on behalf of our constituents back home. Sending journalists from London to our areas will not help us much.
  The trust that is built up between regional journalists and Members of Parliament has been mentioned. In six years, I have got to know regional journalists from all the channels well, including the BBC. That trust cannot be fathomed or weighed. One cannot say, "This is what it is worth," but we know that it is worth a lot. One can pick up the telephone, talk to the regional journalist and know that what one is saying will be heard in confidence. Suggestions may be made and the journalist may be able to assist by getting a programme together or doing a piece on the issue concerned and on what the Member of Parliament is saying about it in the House. If the number

  1223
  of regional journalists working in the House is reduced to a mere handful, with all the others working in the regions, it will be difficult to build up the same sort of rapport with such a small group. The journalists will be snowed under, given our extra work load and all the extra issues with which we seem to be involved. Members of Parliament are already snowed under and the case load seems to increase every Session. The same must apply to journalists.
  I do not know whether hon. Members have had a chance to see "News 24", the new 24-hour rolling news programme from the BBC. It is good in parts, but not good enough. I have argued that the programme could use much of the regional reporting from here, so that all the United Kingdom has a better understanding of what is going on in our country. It is all very well having good-quality programming for the regions, but why not share it out more and put some of it on "News 24", thereby making the cost of some of the reports on it more economic. As we know, news reporting is expensive. I hope that the BBC will reconsider that suggestion.
  The regions have already suffered. In my area, we receive BBC's "North Westminster", on which the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting has appeared from time to time, and very good she is, too. A few years ago her wonderful appearances on that programme used to be aired twice, on the Sunday edition, which went out live, and again on the mid-week repeat. The latter had more viewers than the Sunday edition, but it was chopped. There again, a smaller audience will be left to see what we are doing at Westminster and find out what issues we are fighting for.
  The BBC has made a mistake. The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that it is now rushing about, trying to plug holes and to placate us, but we are not for placating on this issue. We are fighting not for ourselves but for our constituents, who watch regional programmes and who want to know what we are doing. They write to us and from time to time they want to see us on regional television to ensure that their voices are being heard at Westminster, where it is important.
  Mr. John Burnett: The hon. Gentleman touches on a crucial issue. Does he agree that it is not merely that our constituents want to see what we are doing, but that they are incredibly interested in highlighting the issues that they hold so dear, especially in the regions?
  Mr. Evans: I agree. These are not merely the issues that interest us but those that the people in the regions feed to us—the issues about which they write to us, campaign and form lobby groups. We use regional journalists at Westminster, with whom we have built up trust, to get our constituents' views aired on the BBC on a regional basis, according to the public service obligation for which all our constituents pay their licence fee.
  We want some balance. We want the BBC to reconsider. A few years ago, if the BBC was famous for anything, it was for its repeats. Let it look again at its decisions. Where it has made mistakes, let it concede that it has done so. Let the BBC concede that it has rushed this decision through without any proper consultation, that it has made mistakes about "Yesterday in Parliament" and let it change its mind. Let it ensure that there is a real
  1224
  improvement in the regional slant of the reporting of Westminster, so that we can air the issues and campaigns that matter most to our constituents. The only way in which we can properly do so is by consulting with regional journalists based here, with whom we build up trust and whom we see daily—not merely fleetingly every two or three weeks in the Lobby, when so many other people want to see them—so that we can get our views across on the BBC.
  The Minister talked about the review of the licence fee. I ask her to use pressure to remind the BBC of its public service obligation. That is the reason why home owners and the taxpayer have to pay the licence fee in the first place—so that the BBC can cover in detail areas that would not be appropriate for commercial stations. Today, we are saying that the BBC is wrong and should think again.
  11.35 am
  Mr. David Heath: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing this debate, as it is vital that the matter be given a proper airing in the House, and I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to speak about it. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), not only on his speech, with which I entirely agreed, but on his efforts and prompt action in the dark days at the end of July when any sensible person had gone back to his or her constituency to prepare for the holidays but some of us benighted souls were still here to sign the early-day motion that he pressed upon us in the corridors.
  This has not been a good week for the BBC, what with the loss of the cricket coverage, the savaging by a Select Committee, the adventures of "Blue Peter" and the evidence that some presenters have an affection for more than sticky-backed plastic, and now this debate on the BBC's regional coverage. It is terribly easy for us to sound pompous on this subject and for it to be suggested that we feel passionately about it because we like hearing our own voices on the BBC. Let us be honest: there may be an element of that. We like to be able to project what we are saying to the people we represent.
  However, there are far more important issues at stake for people in the regions—the service that the British Broadcasting Corporation provides for them. There are two main elements to their concern. The first is public service broadcasting, its ethos and what it means to have a BBC—something for which many of us have argued strongly and which we want protected and enhanced because it is such an important element of our national structure.
  I do not like the term "dumbing down", which has been used this morning. It is an example of dumbing down to introduce that Americanism. However, we all share the feeling that the BBC is retreating from the intellectual and moral high ground that it was once able to occupy. There is a sense that it no longer aims any higher than catering for the lowest common denominator; that is not the role of the BBC, either under its charter or historically.
  I also believe that the BBC has been deeply patronising in what it has suggested about parliamentary coverage and the public's interest in what happens in this place. It assumes that people are interested only in bread and circuses. I do not believe that that is so, but it is, of course,

  1225
  a self-fulfilling prophecy—if that is all that people are given access to, how can they develop an interest in politics and in the arguments in this House that will have a dramatic impact on their everyday lives?
  One has only to look at other countries to see the great hunger for information about politics that is engendered where one may not expect it. Yesterday, I returned from the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, where I was monitoring the elections. There, where democracy is young and the public have had little opportunity to hold their politicians to account, people are remarkably well informed and understand the nuances of political argument, as their national broadcasting corporation carries daily the debates in their Parliament, the Sobranje.
  People listen and want to know the arguments. One could say that that is inevitable in a young democracy in an area of the world that is not known for its stability, but it highlights how patronising it is to say that the British people cannot be interested in politics, or that they cannot understand anything but the most simplistic voting system—it is thought too difficult to put a tick or circle in a different place. The House should condemn such patronising attitudes.
  As well as the public service ethos, we should consider the BBC's commitment to our localities and regions, about which, as someone from the west country and a Somerset lad through and through, I feel strongly. I know how far it is from London to the west country, a fact which seems to have eluded those who are based at Westminster. I know that what matters down in Somerset is not the same as what matters to the metropolitan elite in London. What we believe to be important is as valid as what people in London believe to be important—the issues that we want to raise are important.
  I am sure that, like many of us, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall has come across people who assume that the distance between Penzance and Swindon is about five miles, that places past Slough are only a short trip away from one another and that anywhere in Somerset cannot be far from a broadcasting studio in Bristol even though it may be an hour and a quarter away. People are not aware of the geography of the area.
  As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said, the BBC has a duty to inform people of what we, as Members of Parliament, are doing on their behalf. We are not sent to Westminster to disappear from the map, not to be seen until the next election. Many hon. Members spend a lot of time ensuring that they are in touch with their constituents so that they can express their views in the House—but where is the feedback if not through the media? How do our constituents know what we are doing, or trying to do, and achieving, or not achieving, on their behalf? That is an important element in the democratic process.
  My concern is not only political coverage; there is also a shrinkage in general coverage within the localities. My example is parochial, although I make no apology for that. Somerset Sound, which is an opt-out from Radio Bristol—we never qualified for a radio station of our own—used to provide a number of hours of local broadcasting from Taunton each day. Recently, those hours have been substantially reduced. We no longer have an afternoon programme from Taunton; it now comes
  1226
  from Bristol. I do not believe that that is because there is no demand. People want local news and views, and Bristol news, Bristol views and even a Bristol accent are not the same as Somerset news, Somerset views and a Somerset accent.
  The link-up was made with no consultation with me or my colleagues who represent the Somerset constituencies—there was no attempt to reconcile us to the change. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) took up the matter, he received a remarkably candid reply from the managing editor, for whom I have considerable respect—I know that she is strongly committed to our local services. She said that her problem was money; she had not been given the budget to provide the local services in Somerset to which the BBC is, in theory, committed and which it should provide as part of its public service.
  The lack of regional coverage poses three threats. First—I do not want to be too pompous—there is a threat to democracy, as local people are being further distanced from the political process and will understand it less; they will not be able to know what we are doing on their behalf and so will find it more difficult to hold us to account. Moreover, it will be more difficult properly to discuss local issues, as what starts as a local campaign seems to evaporate into the ether, never to be mentioned again. Secondly, there is a threat to local identity, as local broadcasting—and the knowledge that people are intimately concerned with the area and want to represent its views—is at least part of that local identity.
  Thirdly and most importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall said, there is a threat to the BBC. If the BBC cannot provide local and regional coverage and does not live up to the public service ethos for which it was created, what is it doing and why should we impose a tax to pay for it? It has a duty to provide intelligent coverage and properly researched comment for all parts of the country, not only for London, and it forgets that at its peril.
  11.47 am
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing this debate. This is an important issue, and it is right that it should be aired in the House. However, it is a pity that our debates on particular BBC issues turn into BBC-bashing sessions.
  I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The BBC's job is to satisfy its audience, who pay for it through the £100 licence fee. If the BBC broadcasts a version of Macedonian television, on which he seems to be so keen, people will not sit round their sets listening to our breathless prose; they will switch to the many hundreds of digital and other channels that they will shortly be able to receive.
  Mr. David Heath: According to the hon. Gentleman's thesis—if I understand it correctly—the BBC should be subject to market forces and not receive the licence fee. He cannot have it both ways: either the BBC is a public resource or it is not.
  Mr. Atkinson: The BBC has to have it both ways. If it fails to deliver substantial audiences, hon. Members and

  1227
  others will say that it should not receive the licence fee, as it provides bad value to those who pay that fee. The BBC walks a tightrope, and we must allow it, in fulfilling its public service obligation—which it does very well—to make sensible editorial judgments.
  I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about "Yesterday in Parliament". That programme can now be found on long wave, so that many more people can listen to it—his quality prose can be heard in Belgium, Holland, northern France and the Republic of Ireland as well as in this country.
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that while it is possible to listen to long wave in Belgium or wherever, that is not possible in some parts of London, let alone in Cornwall. Has the hon. Gentleman read that the BBC itself has already admitted that its listener figures have collapsed for "Yesterday in Parliament", "Today in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster"? So on the hon. Gentleman's own definition—that all that matters is the number of people listening—the BBC has already made a major mistake.
  Mr. Atkinson: It does not say much about our performance in the House that we are of such little interest to listeners that they cannot simply click a switch at 8.45. The fact that they cannot do that probably says more about the House than it does about the BBC. I assure the hon. Member that our constituents are not queueing up to see the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on the television. We kid ourselves if we think that the public are fighting to see us on television and to listen to us on the radio: they are not.
  Having, I hope, slightly defended the BBC's right to make independent editorial judgments on what it transmits, I go on in part to agree with what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said about political coverage at Westminster. I am concerned not so much with what the BBC proposes to do as with how it has done it, how it has treated its staff, and to an extent, how it has misled the House in its correspondence. I agree with him entirely that, if the BBC wants to reduce political coverage, it should stand up and say why. It should come to the House and say, "You are all so boring that we don't want to cover you any more", or whatever. Let us have it in the open so that it can be properly debated.
  Mr. Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is at least a paradox that commercial television is, as far as I know, retaining all its regional coverage? Can he explain that away?
  Mr. Atkinson: I am trying to criticise the BBC not for its decision, but for the way in which it arrived at it. It is not my job to defend it. These are the kind of arguments that we should have had with the BBC, not this muddling and misleading correspondence that we had with it before the recess.
  The BBC must stand accused of causing a tremendous amount of uncertainty and worry to its regional staff as a result of its decision. The letter that was sent just before the recess gave me the wrong impression that the political editors would be down here in Westminster during the parliamentary Session and travel back for the recess. That manifestly is not the case and not what was planned, but
  1228
  it is what I thought was intended. We will have four gofers in Westminster, and the political editors will have to travel down.
  I represent a north-east seat. BBC staff from my area who want to come here will be faced with at least a three-and-a-half-hour train journey to get to London in order to cover a story and a three-and-a-half-hour train journey back, perhaps spending the night in London. The same would apply to the constituency of the hon. Member for North Cornwall. It is ludicrous that that should be so. We should ask the BBC—perhaps the Minister can put some pressure on it—to think again about this. If it proposes to do this—as I said, it is entitled to—it should make a proper and open case and explain its rationale. If it is done to save money in order to invest in digital television and new technology, so be it. The BBC has to compete in that world as well.
  I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley that BBC news 24 hours a day would not be enhanced by long periods showing our debates in the House. Something more attractive will have to be sought. I criticise the BBC for its handling of the matter, but we should not use this debate to attack its integrity and editorial independence.
  11.53 am
  Mr. Richard Allan: It is important not to launch into the BBC and also to say that we will have to work with the new structure whatever it is. But against that background I want to make the case strongly for a regional component of the BBC, and to mention in particular the issue of honesty about the changes to which the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) referred.
  There is a reality lag between large parts of the United Kingdom and Westminster. We all suffer from it when we return from the recess and the world of ordinary folk to the slightly odd world that we inhabit here. Regional correspondents had an important role to fill in bridging that reality gap between, in my case, my constituency in Sheffield and what happens in Westminster. It was that local component, that connection, which made Westminster understandable and intelligible. In some cases, correspondents are better able to explain what happens here than some of us practitioners, who often end up confused.
  It is important that the people in the regions see us at work. They want to see all those whom they have elected and whose wages they pay at work, not just members of the Government and prominent parliamentarians, but the Back Benchers who represent them. That is the component most likely to suffer if we take the regional correspondents out, as the BBC has already done.
  That connection is apparent when we bump into the correspondents in Central Lobby and refer to something that is happening the next day or next week and ask what is going on. That day-to-day contact is crucial. I can say that something is happening in Sheffield and know the correspondent will be aware of previous debates six months ago, or of the fact that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) had a debate 12 months ago. They can link those up and put together a package which is about Sheffield and Yorkshire rather than simply a hook on to a national news story.
  My great fear is that, particularly with the media machine that the Government have skilfully put together, which means that its members get up earlier in the

  1229
  morning than anyone else to get the stories out, and are often dead by midday, an ordinary Back Bencher cannot get on to the back of a national story. We have been shut out and are left with our regional stories. Adjournment debates—there is one later this morning on a crucial issue concerning South Yorkshire—on local issues will always be covered by regional correspondents because they know that the matter is important and will be keeping their eyes open for it.
  Mr. Steve Webb: Does my hon. Friend accept that some talented and dedicated reporters have tragically been sacked—for example, Viv Robbins in the west country, who has given faithful service? As my hon. Friend said, such people are more expert than we are.
  Mr. Allan: I agree. Our attachment to our regional correspondents is a testament to the skilful way in which they have done their jobs. I shall not mention any, because I did so in a previous debate and I understand that they currently do not have a contract, so I was obviously not helpful. However, that connection, and the warmth that we feel for them, reflect the fact that Adjournment debates and parliamentary questions on local issues will simply not receive coverage without someone being tuned into them, picking them up and putting them out. With the best will in the world, while we will all try to make the new arrangement work, it will not give staff adequate time to pick up on regional issues.
  The way in which the proposals have been sold is shameful. Technology is moving on, but it is often used as an excuse for reducing coverage. Digital television is mentioned and we are told that there is coverage on the internet. I am a great technology fan, and I congratulate the members of staff who have managed to put my name up on the annunciator. There we see technology moving forward. But at the moment digital television and the internet do not have the coverage of terrestrial television. With the best will in the world, we cannot say that, just because we put a debate on the internet or on a digital or cable channel, it will achieve the same coverage as it would on mainstream terrestrial television.
  Mr. Tyler: Even the best technology is still dependent on human input and, since my constituency came up wrong on the annunciator, I hope that my hon. Friend, as chairman of the Select Committee on Information, will take note and see that next time it appears as North Cornwall rather than Cornwall, North.
  Mr. Allan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping us with some of the teething troubles. I am sure that that will have been noted by those who are ever vigilant in the annunciator box.
  Technology is moving on, but it should not be used as an excuse to take things off terrestrial television. There is an argument which, taken to its logical conclusion, would put all politics on marginal specialised channels within media such as the internet and digital television.
  It could be argued that, in terms of the number of hours, coverage has increased, but in terms of real coverage to real people, that does not work. The point made by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) about long
  1230
  wave versus FM signals is another example of a reality lag. In the real world, people simply do not switch from one to the other. If they are like me, they turn on the radio in the morning and are too bleary-eyed to change a channel on a push-button radio, let alone one with a dial. Moreover, radios commonly do not have long wave. In reality, people turn on the radio and tune to FM because it has a better signal in most parts of the country. Long wave is a distraction; it is not a serious option for people to listen to FM, suddenly to switch over for "Yesterday in Parliament", and then to switch back.
  Technology should not be used as an excuse. It would be much more honest to deal with things as I deal with the commercial or independent sector in my region. We have open and honest debates about the role of political coverage, the stories it likes to cover and what is interesting and what is not. It is a pity that the BBC has not been honest and said, "We think that politics is boring and we want to reduce coverage. We only want 'man bites dog' stories because 'dog bites man'—ordinary parliamentary coverage—is no longer attractive enough." If the BBC came to us and said that, we could have a debate on those terms.
  Unfortunately, we have had a debate in which the BBC has been saying, "We are expanding coverage, we have many new technologies and everything will be wonderful." In fact, we all suspect that the BBC is making it much harder to achieve the coverage that we want.
  We need honesty in the debate, and we need to deal with the mass market versus specialist market interests. We need to deal with the serious broadcasting role of the BBC and its relationship to the licence fee. In that way we would no longer be floundering around, all talking on different terms and pretending that everything is fine in the garden when it is not. Honesty here is essential.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall for initiating this debate. He has done us a service by communicating the views of a range of honourable Members to the BBC. Hopefully, the comments of the Minister will communicate an official viewpoint. If we can get an honest debate, we will be able to come up with the type of regional coverage that will work, rather than making life deliberately difficult for ourselves by having people shunting around on trains or just not coming here at all.
  12.1 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing this important debate. He put his argument extremely cogently. I thank all those who participated in the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) who has been a champion of this cause for some time and who probably knows more about the media than anybody else in the House. I welcome the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) to her new role and to the Chamber this morning.
  This is a period of rapid change in the media, most notably in the BBC. We are seeing changes taking place in radio and television and we are seeing the move from terrestrial to digital. I am sure that I am not alone in having seen the new parliamentary channel in its digital form being presented by the BBC yesterday. It is impressive, but whether people will watch it in the numbers that parliamentarians may wish remains to be seen.

  1231
  I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of a BBC funding review. The Secretary of State is keen on reviews, not all of which are entirely relevant, but we welcome this review in principle. The Secretary of State has said—I think that the House will agree—that the BBC needs to adapt and survive and needs to fulfil its public service obligations. Those are sentiments that the House can endorse as the Secretary of State looks at the funding picture for the BBC in the future.
  I shall deal now with the specific point raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. Some months ago—I am sure that I was not alone in this—BBC journalists based at Millbank approached me with great concern about their future. They had heard rumours about the changes, but nothing had been decided at that time. I made inquiries with the BBC at senior managerial level and was given assurances that the concerns were not accurate and, in fact, were misplaced. We now know that those concerns were entirely accurate and that, while those remarks were being refuted, changes were in the pipeline. I regret that.
  To echo what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said about his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), last week, in view of an impending visit to my constituency by one of the members of the shadow Cabinet, I sought to establish contact with the BBC at Millbank before Parliament resumed. It was impossible to track anybody down. I discovered that the individual with whom I usually dealt had disappeared. What transpired in practice is what we are now going to have to face, which is a reduced staff. The link mentioned by other hon. Members this morning has gone, and I regret that.
  We are told that the justification for the change is that it is based upon the successful practice of BBC coverage in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are to be 10 regional political editors, and seven are in place. As we have heard this morning, they will be located in places such as Newcastle, Norwich or wherever. I believe this to be a profound mistake. No part of England is comparable to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Each of those places is evolving a different constitutional architecture and a different political structure. The entities that are the constituent parts of the United Kingdom are quite different from England. The justification for the establishment of the regional editors is the alleged success in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I do not believe that a regional political editor coming to London from time to time will be enough. We know that there will be a reduced team.
  As I and other hon. Members have said, we have built up strong relationships with the journalists based at Millbank. They know about our interests and our activities and they are on the spot to make judgments about who to approach if a story breaks quickly. That link to Parliament is now being challenged.
  There is a clear message—we saw it with the changes to Radio 4—about the view that the BBC is taking of Parliament and parliamentarians. I am concerned about the effect of that in practice because a message has been sent yet again from the BBC about its view of Parliament. I do not believe that it is correct or that it is in the public's long-term interest.
  We have already heard about the difficulties over Radio 4. When the changes were first mooted last year, we know that Madam Speaker complained vociferously about the
  1232
  scheduling changes, especially about "Yesterday in Parliament" moving to long wave. Many others echoed those sentiments. We were told that parliamentary coverage was being extended, and we were blinded by all sorts of statistics. When we sum up what happened and what is happening, we can see that there is greater width but an absence of depth. That is the crucial concern.
  Tomorrow, RAJAR—Radio Joint Audience Research—will be telling us the latest Radio 4 listenership levels. I have spoken to RAJAR at length, but, quite properly, it did not reveal the figures although there have been leaks in the newspapers. We know already that the pattern that seems to be emerging is that, in absolute and relative terms, listenership is declining. That has come about in part because parliamentary coverage has been messed about and the widening of it has been at the expense of depth. As a result, people are switching off. With the proposals that we now have for television coverage, in addition to the Radio 4 coverage, Parliament will be seen to be even more irrelevant to people's lives. I look forward to the BBC's analysis of the RAJAR figures.
  I want to use this opportunity to put things in context. We cannot look at the latest move in isolation. It is part of a pattern of the way in which the BBC projects itself in its public service interest. Undoubtedly, Radio 4 is the jewel in the crown of the BBC. Programmes such as "From Our Own Correspondent" are truly marvellous. However, we are increasingly seeing a downgrading of evidential and top-quality journalism in favour of quiz shows and chat shows, which are becoming ever more dominant.
  I would not normally like to use the expression "dumbing down", but it fits in with many of the attitudes that now obtain, particularly in the Government, in respect of Parliament. When discussing Radio 4, the BBC's annual report and accounts for 1997–98 says:
  "The new schedule affirms the BBC's intent to place the listener at the heart of its thinking. The BBC will ensure that Radio 4 maintains the esteem and loyalty of its audience through the excellence of its programmes."
  It goes on to talk about the independent advice panel and the fact that Radio 4 is a standard bearer for excellence.
  We know in practice that that is simply not happening. As a result of the changes in Radio 4 and in regional coverage of Parliament, local BBC radio stations are now genuinely concerned about what will happen to them. My local radio station, BBC Radio Suffolk, is well valued by the local community. Local radio knows the issues, the problems and the Members of Parliament, and it does an extremely good job, not only in Suffolk, but throughout the country. It is naturally concerned that there will be some sort of regionalisation and a further loss of linkage between the local community, Members of Parliament and other movers and shakers in its area. I hope that the BBC will seek to give reassurance on that, because the obsession with regionalisation is wholly undesirable.
  We have entrusted the BBC with a special status. It does not essentially have to refer to anybody. However, that places a special obligation on it. Although commercial stations also have public service obligations, the Independent Television Commission has a specific role to look at any possible changes in the coverage of ITV, Channels 4 and 5. That obligation via an independent body is not placed on the BBC, which has a special responsibility because it is substantially funded by licence payers.

  1233
  We have heard about the extended coverage of news, and we know about News 24 and the enormous increase in channels. However, am I alone in believing that there has been a decline in quality in, for example, the flagship presentation of the Nine O'Clock News? News presentation is being increasingly tabloidised and factual reporting supplemented in ever-larger chunks by BBC correspondents' interpretation of events.
  We dismiss television in the United States as being of poor quality. On the main news channels—ABC and NBC—news reporting is factual and without a huge back-up of interpretative reporting by journalists. Tabloidisation and other changes within the BBC are not welcome. Ultimately, they do not serve the BBC's best interests.
  We must all accept that we are in the digital age. It is an enormously costly exercise, and huge sums are being invested in the BBC. I have some sympathy for the BBC in that regard. However, although the core functions of terrestrial television, political coverage and the jewel in the crown, Radio 4, must compete with the BBC's other functions, they must not be starved of funds because of digitalisation. That is in the best interests of neither the BBC nor the nation.
  To keep the licence fee at the end of the consultation process and the independent review announced by the Secretary of State, the BBC should improve its quality. That is how to assure survival on the present basis. Given the importance of Parliament in the life of the nation, the way in which the changes have been put in place gives considerable cause for concern. The BBC has a special role in the life of this country. It has a public service remit to the people of the United Kingdom and their Parliament.
  12.14 pm
  The Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for his kind congratulations. Most importantly, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing the debate. It is extremely important that we have an opportunity to discuss such issues in this place. The hon. Gentleman clearly takes his responsibility seriously in his capacity as a shadow leader of the House. He raised some interesting and important points, which I hope will be listened to carefully.
  A number of hon. Members have contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) expressed concern about coverage in Scotland. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) also spoke. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), whom I almost referred to as my hon. Friend because he shares a region with me, often competes with me for regional coverage. He usually wins hands down. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that this had been a bad week for the BBC. May I repeat a popular slogan, which did the Labour party proud not too long ago—"Things can only get better"?
  The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said that he hoped that this debate would not be an exercise in BBC bashing. I endorse that sentiment. In introducing the
  1234
  debate, the hon. Member for North Cornwall said that he bet that there would be no report of today's debate on his regional BBC station. I hope that he is proved wrong.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has had to leave the Chamber—I suspect that he is listening to an address by the Prime Minister elsewhere in the House—expressed concern about a decline in the national reporting of Parliament. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the widely respected Chairman of the Select Committee, cannot be here, as we would all have welcomed his contribution to the debate.
  The obligations placed on the BBC in respect of its broadcasting services are set out in its "Royal Charter and Agreement". They include broad obligations in terms of the number of television and radio services, objectives and programme content, standards and scheduling. The BBC must provide a properly balanced service to serve the tastes and needs of different audiences. The BBC agreement also contains a specific programming requirement, introduced in 1948, that the corporation must transmit an impartial account day by day, prepared by professional reporters, of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament. Within that framework, decisions about programme content and scheduling are wholly a matter for the corporation.
  Mr. Tyler: I welcome the Minister warmly to her new post and commiserate with her that she has to be with us rather than listening to the Prime Minister, although she has probably heard more wisdom from us than she would from him.
  There is an important distinction between what the Minister has just said and the BBC's new approach. Reportage of our debates will in future be treated as a specialist interest like potholing or collecting stamps, to be put in an exclusive ghetto of broadcasting wavelengths. I hope that she, and the Secretary of State, will consider that scenario carefully when the future of the BBC comes up for review.
  Janet Anderson: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's concern is shared widely in the House, and I shall come to that later.
  The position that I have set out reflects the independence of the BBC in all editorial and management matters. That was first enshrined in the 1996 agreement, but it is not a new concept. The need for editorial independence from political and commercial influences has been one of the fundamental principles governing the BBC since its establishment as a public corporation in 1927.
  The Government fully support that principle, but the BBC's independence brings with it obligations, including the need to be, and to be seen to be, accountable to licence fee payers, as stakeholders and customers; to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as the custodian of its charter and agreement; and to Parliament, as the public authority for the moneys paid through the licence fee. The BBC has a duty to keep in touch with its audiences and to be responsive to their concerns, and that includes Members of this House.
  I shall quote from "BBC News: The Future", which is sub-titled "Public service news in the digital age". Hon. Members have referred to the concern that some of

  1235
  the changes may be due to the digital revolution, which is fast approaching. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured by the booklet, which says:
  "We will report and engage audiences in the proceedings of Parliament and the devolved assemblies of the United Kingdom. We will help people to understand the working of government and to hold to account those who take decisions."
  On reporting politics, it says:
  "The reporting of politics lies at the heart of our public purpose both to inform and facilitate democratic debate. The public recognise and confirm this as a central role for the BBC. Yet dissatisfaction with politicians, the political process and key aspects of political reporting present us with a challenge: how to continue providing proper coverage of politics but … make it more engaging and accessible to audiences. We want to ensure that political argument goes beyond the soundbite to enhance public understanding of the complexities that underlie political argument."
  The pamphlet continues:
  "We are committed to covering Parliament thoroughly. We have already launched the new BBC Parliament channel which offers full access to all the proceedings in the two main chambers, plus committee coverage, to enable viewers to assess their legislators at work. This new channel will maintain links to the political background material in News Online. It will become Britain's answer to C-Span in the US. We will also provide continuous audio coverage on digital radio.
  "Our changes to parliamentary programming were approved by the Governors earlier this year."
  I do not want to repeat what everyone has said about the changes that have taken place, because they have been given a full airing in this place.
  The BBC believes that these new arrangements put in place a more effective system of political coverage for regional broadcasting in England at a time when regional politics is increasingly important. The key objective is to ensure that political coverage is at the heart of the BBC's main early-evening regional programmes and reaches as large an audience as possible.
  The BBC also hopes that the new structure will make it easier for hon. Members to liaise with a senior figure in the editorial structure of each BBC region, and that major political developments in each region will be covered more comprehensively and with greater authority.
  The BBC is aware that there is still some apprehension about the new structure, and that has certainly been reinforced by this morning's debate. I understand that Nigel Chapman, BBC Controller English Regions, has a meeting scheduled with the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his hon. Friends next week, which will provide an opportunity for these concerns to be aired. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds the meeting useful.
  The BBC's intention was to strengthen political and parliamentary coverage in the regions. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall, his hon. Friends and hon. Members on both sides of the House will keep a watching brief on the development of the new arrangements and whether they deliver the coverage of Parliament and politics that the BBC has undertaken to provide.
  I do not believe that the BBC is out of touch with opinion in this country. It is important that it keeps in touch, and one of the best ways of doing that is to provide proper reporting of Parliament and politics. I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall; I am sure that the BBC will be listening carefully to what he has to say.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  12.25 pm
  Ms Margaret Moran: I welcome the opportunity to raise some of the competitiveness issues that small and medium enterprises in my constituency have raised with me. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry has said many times, SMEs are essential to this country's competitive edge and to the Government's competitiveness agenda. I am pleased that the White Paper on competitiveness, which is to be published soon, will reflect that.
  I whole-heartedly welcome the fact that competitiveness is at the heart of our industrial and economic policy. It is a key issue for us in Luton, a town that has suffered badly from the boom-and-bust economics of the previous Government and their desertion of manufacturing industry. The competitiveness and productivity of our local companies are recognised as priorities for the Luton and Dunstable partnership and Luton borough council's economic development strategy, yet we still have difficulty, certainly at local level, identifying and spreading the factors that will increase competitiveness for our SMEs.
  I raised that question with local businesses, the chamber of commerce, the local branch of the Federation of Small Businesses and the university of Luton over the recess. My visits and discussions ranged across the SMEs of virtually every sector in Luton, from the traditional hat industry to the engineering and manufacturing sectors, and from the service sector to high-tech firms. I committed myself to feeding back some of the views of those involved in Luton's smaller businesses, with my own observations. As ever, this is a partnership approach, aimed at getting what is best for Luton.
  Although the issues raised are not new in the competitiveness debate, I hope that they will make some small contribution to ensuring that our competitiveness agenda recognises the coal face issues for SMEs and assures them that the Government are determined to promote their competitiveness. That does not mean going cap in hand to the Government; indeed, the "more grants" approach from some SMEs that I visit always sets alarm bells ringing about their productivity and competitiveness. Nor is it the old Tory Government approach of "sink or swim". Our smaller businesses can compete and flourish only when the Government are creating the right climate—for example, through our focus on education to help to upskill our people.
  What do people at the coal face think about competitiveness? First, although the impact of the strong pound was raised with reasonable frequency, there was widespread recognition that the single most important factor for the competitiveness of the sector is creating a stable, long-term economic framework for planning and investment, whether in production, people or productivity. A senior executive of a small engineering company in our area said:
  "economic volatility is our greatest problem".
  Secondly, although there is reasonable recognition of the work that we have already done to create the right climate for the sector, some businesses are concerned that, if our strategy to encourage investment is to be fulfilled, there is still a need further to extend the capital allowances.

  1237
  The extension in the last Budget of enhanced allowances to small and medium-sized enterprises for investment in plant and machinery at 40 per cent. for a further year is welcome, but a longer extension would have been even more welcome. Other measures in the Budget, such as the reduction in the level of corporation tax to 20 per cent.—the lowest in Europe—represent a major boost to profits and should encourage investment, as should the improvements to cash flow from the abolition of advance corporation tax.
  The reform in the Budget of the tax and national insurance system, and the simplification of the system by the alignment of the national insurance contribution system with the Inland Revenue, by the abolition of the NIC entry fee and by the alignment of the lower earnings limit with income tax personal allowance are welcome. Those measures will mean that small and medium-sized enterprises will pay about £140 million less tax in the next financial year, which is significant for our smaller businesses.
  The national insurance reforms will eliminate 1 million employers' NIC charges, and will make it easier for employers to create new jobs, thereby complementing our new deal initiatives. That is significant for Luton, where unemployment in some wards in my constituency is more than 18 per cent.
  Therein lies a further issue for Luton's small businesses: the level of recognition of the benefits to them of the new deal. Despite a series of high profile events, some of which I initiated, including a conference on the new deal hosted by Vauxhall Motors and a launch involving almost all the major employers based at or around London Luton airport, and the Government's national television campaign, I constantly have to explain the benefits of the new deal to every small and medium business that I visit. As most jobs are likely to come from that sector, it is clear that we need to do more. Dare I say that we should have a joint promotion involving the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Employment to focus attention on the advantages that the new deal can offer, particularly in reducing the training costs of new employees.
  One of the barriers to the involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises in the new deal is the perceived lack of skills on offer. The skills gap problem is not new for any business, but for us in Luton it is crucial. From hat manufacturers, such as Marida Ltd., to high-tech manufacturers, the problems are the same. A Bedfordshire training and enterprise council survey found that, of 50 local companies, 16 said that skills shortages had limited growth in the past 12 months or would limit growth in the coming year. Stanbridge Precision Turned Parts, which has 100 workers, has had to turn down work. With the cost of training running at £50,000 per new recruit—they are often then poached by other companies—more incentives for smaller businesses to assist with in-house training would be valuable. That is just one example of the skills crisis locally and nationally in the engineering sector.
  The recent engineering audit carried out in conjunction with the Engineering Employers Federation, which I recently met in Luton, is to be applauded. It showed a
  1238
  greater commitment to training by engineering SMEs than by their larger counterparts. However, it is clear that more incentives and a more targeted approach are needed.
  Skills-based training is critical now, but to retain a competitive edge, training staff to embrace the new, more competitive ideas is crucial for the long term. Although SMEs in Luton recognise the immediate skills gap that needs to be tackled, they seem to be less certain about the need to maximise their skills base.
  The ability to encourage innovation is an essential element of competitiveness. The level of innovation among small businesses in the Bedfordshire area is low compared with the level in the United Kingdom as a whole, according to a study undertaken by Luton university. That study concluded that, although there is some correlation between size of business and the level of innovation, that does not tell the whole story. Indeed, the factors that account for this focus on the macro level, and we still have little understanding of the processes at work. There is a clear need for more work in that area.
  A further factor that the Government have recognised as a key to competitiveness in the small business sector is the ability to adapt to the information age. However, from my experience through my visits to businesses in Luton, it is clear that the importance and the opportunities of new technologies to the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises should be more widely known.
  I am aware of the information society initiative programme for businesses that the Government have initiated, and its emphasis on this sector, but not many SMEs that I visited knew of it. That is borne out by research carried out recently by Bedfordshire chamber of commerce, which found that most small businesses in Luton and Bedfordshire use IT equipment, but feel that they are not making optimum use of what they have.
  On my recent visit to a company with 80 employees, it was depressing to be told that the only technology in the company was an ancient computer used for the payroll, and that there was a director who was proud of knowing nothing about new technology. I hope that that is atypical, but I fear that for many, the information age is an issue only for the emerging technologies sector and the so-called "tech stars." The message I give to all small businesses is to "get wired."
  Our SMEs have much to learn from their counterparts in Canada, which I recently visited. There, the new technologies are integrated into every aspect of business life, from the large to the micro, and from systems to new production methods. We could all learn from Industry Canada' s strategy for creating a knowledge-based economy, which recognises that investment in knowledge contributes directly to competitiveness and growth in all sectors. It has set clear targets for working in partnership with all businesses to promote the recognition of knowledge as a fundamental factor in improving efficiency of production and distribution processes, and in improving the quality, variety and quantity of products.
  The proof is that businesses that develop new ideas, manufacture new products and deliver new services succeed. Output in Canada is expanding fastest in knowledge-intensive firms, which are also creating the most jobs. Canarie and Tara in Halifax provide repayable loans to emerging and small companies. Their support for innovation in the application of new technologies is an example of the practical application of the strategy, and can enhance competitiveness for smaller firms.

  1239
  In this country, the small business foresight programme and the university for industry will have a crucial role to play in helping SMEs to increase competitiveness in these areas. The university for industry cannot come soon enough for many small businesses in Luton. Given the concerns that I have expressed about the competitiveness of SMEs locally, I am delighted that Luton university is rising to the challenge right now. It has recognised that competitiveness is a priority for British business, and that a structured approach is required to tackle the impediments.
  At the moment, there is no nationally recognised centre where organisations can seek advice on improving their competitiveness. That is why the national centre for competitiveness is being established. It will help to provide solutions to the new demands of the world's marketplace by working with business to define the key elements of competitiveness, by benchmarking, by drawing on best practice and, crucially, by focusing on practical application.
  With a plethora of small businesses on the centre's doorstep, it has confirmed that it will play a key role in enhancing competitiveness among small businesses locally. I welcome its contribution to this task, and I look forward to working with the centre to the competitive benefit of Luton's small and medium-sized enterprises.
  12.38 pm
  The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) has chosen this important topic for us to debate. I congratulate her on her work with local small businesses. She has done very well to use the recess period for that purpose, and to secure a debate so soon afterwards. She raised a number of important issues that directly affect businesses in her constituency, all other small businesses and, indeed, all who aspire to run their own enterprises.
  The Government have said a number of times, here and elsewhere, that small businesses are the life blood of our economy. If they are not competitive, the country is not competitive. That is why the Government are so committed to helping to create an environment in which businesses have the confidence to grow and prosper, whatever their size and in whichever sector they operate. In doing that, we shall generate wealth, employment opportunities, and opportunities for firms to innovate and create.
  Since the general election, the Government have been working to establish strong links with businesses at all levels, to ensure that they really understand the issues that concern them and what affects their ability to compete. We aim to be a listening as well as a doing Government, and what my hon. Friend has said is particularly welcome because it will enable us to perform such a role.
  We know that gaining access to appropriate finance is a key issue for all businesses, but especially for smaller firms.
  Mr. Colin Breed: Does the Minister share my concern about the recent statement that, now that banks are ploughing hundreds of millions of pounds into black holes known as hedge funds, they may find it more difficult to support small and medium-sized enterprises? Will she seek confirmation from the chairmen
  1240
  of the clearing banks that any irresponsible lending in which they have engaged internationally in respect of hedge funds will not prevent them from supporting the small and medium business sector?
  Mrs. Roche: I make it my business to have a good relationship will all the banks and to meet them regularly, not only on an individual basis, but collectively, through helpful organisations such as the British Bankers Association.
  I think that the relationship between the clearing banks and small businesses is better now than it has been in the past. The message that I try to get across is that small businesses are operating in a climate in which they must be really competitive to win support. The banks seem to be increasingly aware of the importance of the SME market, but I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to them when I meet them again.
  As finance is a key issue, we are working with the venture capital industry, and through the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts, to get to grips with the problems involved in obtaining small amounts of investment capital. Finance is, of course, especially important to small technology-based companies.
  Mr. Brian White: Many firms want to bring an idea to, as it were, the pre-development stage before venture capitalists have invested in it. Other countries have learnt the lesson, and invested at that stage. Are the British Government considering doing the same?
  Mrs. Roche: We are examining the possibilities with interest. We do not think that there is any one solution to what is clearly a problem. This is a great country for ideas and innovation, but we have slipped up in the past, in that there has been a gap between creativity and bringing good ideas to commercial fruition. We are talking to the banks and to other financial institutions, and also considering what the Government can add to the contribution of our academic and scientific base.
  Ms Moran: I gave the Canadian examples of Canarie and Tara. Have the Government considered adopting their approach? The setting up of an arm's-length private sector company has enhanced business confidence, leading to investment in micro-businesses that are doing innovative work and the provision of venture funds on a loan-share basis, to be repaid over a period.
  Mrs. Roche: I believe that my hon. Friend visited Canada through PITCOM—the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee. A few days earlier, I was in Canada representing the United Kingdom at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ministerial meeting to discuss electronic commerce. I was interested to learn that my hon. Friend and other parliamentarians were to visit the country.
  We are considering a number of options. We are considering ways in which we can encourage spin-offs, and our attitude to corporate ventures. I have written to some of our top companies about their experience of corporate venturing. There is probably no single solution, but the Government can make a number of contributions in partnership with finance and business.
  Mr. Brian Cotter: I am sorry to intervene when there have already been so many

  1241
  interventions, but does the Minister agree that there is an argument, in the case of small enterprises and enterprises that are trying to get going, for raising the VAT threshold?
  Mrs. Roche: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Chancellor announced in his March Budget that there would be consultation to invite views on the desirability of changing the registration thresholds. On 10 July, Customs and Excise published a consultation paper inviting comments on options, to be submitted by 12 October. The responses will help to inform any future Budget decisions on registration thresholds.
  We are working with the financial sector to try to assist "new growth" firms. The long-standing small firms loan guarantee scheme continues to offer support to small businesses that lack security or a trading track record. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South pointed out, we have also made tax changes to ensure that businesses keep more of their profits so that they can reinvest and expand. In April next year, for example, the small companies rate of corporation tax will be cut to 20 per cent., the lowest rate ever.
  When we were in opposition, we listened a great deal to what small businesses said about what they described as a great barrier to growth—late payment of commercial debt. One of the first things that we did for small firms was to legislate for a statutory right to interest, which will be introduced on 1 November. Along with organisations representing businesses, we are working on a package of measures to tackle the problem of late payment.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister agree that the contribution of organisations such as the Small Business Bureau—whose conference she addressed last week, in my constituency—and the Federation of Small Businesses, among others, has helped Governments of both parties to adapt to the prevailing climate, and the need for legislation? Will she join me in paying tribute to the work of such organisations?
  Mrs. Roche: I will do so with pleasure. The organisations that the hon. Gentleman has cited—along with the Forum of Private Business, the Institute of Directors, the British chamber of commerce and others—have made a tremendous contribution. They have given freely of their time to allow us to pursue and consult on our policies. As a Minister, I am personally grateful to them for that high-calibre contribution.
  We listened to organisations such as those that I have mentioned when they told us that business was being strangled by red tape and the over-zealous enforcement of regulations. That is why we have created a one-stop shop on the Internet—direct access Government—to provide businesses with guidance and the forms they need to comply with regulation.
  In the last Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a package of measures to simplify rules and to help business to comply, including a payroll assistance scheme to help new employers. That, combined with the merging of the Department of Social Security's Contributions Agency with the Inland Revenue in April 1999, should further ease the regulatory burden on business.
  1242
  Where we have introduced new legislation to protect consumers or to ensure that employees are treated fairly, we have taken steps to ensure that the burdens on business are kept to a minimum. That is key—to get the balance absolutely right.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South rightly spoke about the role of training and development. Business owners and managers know that their workers are their greatest resource. The more successful a firm, the more likely it is to invest in training. We are working with businesses to help them to develop their own and their employees' skills and potential. Small firms training loans help firms to provide training when it is needed—often at a crucial phase in expansion—without having to wait until they can afford further capital outlay. It is encouraging to note the number of smaller businesses participating in modern apprenticeships and national traineeships. That is why we have placed such emphasis on those particular sectors.
  Rightly, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South mentioned the importance of the university for industry and the particular advantage that that can bring to small and medium enterprises. We have used communication and information technologies to develop a new sort of organisation—the university for industry—to stimulate the demand for learning among businesses and individuals, and to improve the availability of and access to high-quality education and training. That will enable the small firm that finds it difficult to allow its employees to go away from their place of work to take advantage of what is on offer. We are also seeing a realisation among employees and employers alike that, if we are to be truly competitive into the next century, the key is a highly skilled, highly motivated work force.
  Businesses constantly tell us that, to grow, they need high-quality information and advice. That is where partnership is so important; indeed, that was something to which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South referred. As all hon. Members will know, Business Links is the network of national partnerships in England that provides a single access point to businesses of all sizes and in all sectors, offering them help and information at all stages of their growth.
  Last October, I launched "Enhanced Business Links: A Vision for the 21st century." That is intended to ensure that all those involved in Business Links will raise the quality of business support to the best standard. That means focusing on the needs of customers to ensure that Business Links reaches its full potential, which in turn will enable its business customers to grow and to compete in the global market.
  Rightly, in her speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South spoke about the importance of new technology for small and medium enterprises. I absolutely reassure her that the Government want small businesses, whatever sector they are involved in, to take advantage of the new technology. All the benchmarking that the Government have done recently, which compares our performance against that of our major competitors internationally, shows that the United Kingdom is doing pretty well in the use of new technology.
  That does not mean that we cannot do better. We can and we will—we certainly aim to do so—but there is still too wide a gap between large firms and small and medium

  1243
  enterprises. As we look at our competitiveness, a key aim of the Government is to bridge that gap, and we are working hard to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South mentioned the programme for business and local support centres; we have increased them. We know that giving small business the hands-on experience of using new technology can be beneficial. We also appreciate that, if people are running their own small business, they often do not have the time to use the technology that they have to its fullest extent. That is why we are committed to ensuring that we can give them the experience of doing so.
  The key thing that we have to get across to those businesses is that the changes in the next few years, with electronic commerce coming on stream, will mean that all business, whatever its size, will have to embrace the new technology. That is a challenge to the industry as well: to make the technology as consumer and business friendly as possible.
  Mr. Cotter: What specific training will there be for smaller businesses when it comes to the use of electronic communication such as the internet, as they are at some disadvantage against larger concerns?
  Mrs. Roche: There is already the programme for business, which looks at the use of information technology. As I have said, just a couple of weeks ago, I represented the UK at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ministerial conference in Ottawa. We are looking to see how we can help small business in that regard, but the key thing is that, in future—I will probably put myself out of a job—we shall probably not define firms any more in terms of small,
  1244
  medium and large, but only by how best they compete in the marketplace using new technologies. That is why schemes such as SMART, the small firms merit award for research and technology, the innovation and technology counsellors in Business Links and the teaching company scheme are so important—to ensure that we really meet those challenges.
  Businesses have to prepare themselves for some challenges in the next few weeks and months. Whether the UK is in or out of the European monetary union, businesses will have to learn to deal with the single currency. The year 2000 problem, the so-called millennium bug, also has to be faced, which is why the Government have invested so much time, money and effort in the matter. Of course, the setting up of Action 2000, specifically working with business, is so important in that regard.
  All British firms that trade with the 11 European member states that will have a single currency from 1 January next year will be affected by European monetary union, so we have a duty to ensure that those firms are as prepared as they possibly can be to take advantage of the opportunities that that will bring.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South has raised this important subject and recognises the importance of creating an environment that encourages entrepreneurial activity. I again congratulate her on her work in her constituency on the issue, thank her for, so early on in this new Session, giving me the opportunity to speak about the Government's plans in this sector and assure her and the House that enterprise will be at the heart of the competitiveness White Paper which will be published by the Government this autumn. I congratulate her again. The contributions that we have received from hon. Members on both sides of the House demonstrate the importance of this vital topic.

  Lieutenant-Colonel Miller
  12.58 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Although this case concerns my constituent, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, I shall be urging the Minister to regard it as a matter that goes much wider than one individual case. I believe that the case raises points of general principle.
  The history of the matter is somewhat complex—it is certainly a long-running saga. Nevertheless, it is important to realise that, in taking up Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's case, both I and my predecessor, Sir Michael Grylls, have believed in the strength of Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's case for recognition of the significance of his work in developing the most important and pioneering bomb disposal equipment that the tragedies of Northern Ireland have seen.
  The general principle is that those who are serving officers who invent equipment that is well beyond the scope of their normal duties should be recognised for that work. I have mentioned in the title of this debate, which appears on today's Order Paper, the "Committee on Awards to Inventors". Today, I should like specifically to deal with the judgment of that committee and of current Ministers on the principles under which that committee operates.
  I start by praying in aid the correspondence that I have seen from those, other than Lieutenant-Colonel Miller himself writing about his case, who have personal experience of the importance of the development of Wheelbarrow. I am delighted that my hon. Friends who have extensive experience in Ulster—as a serving officer, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), and as a Minister, in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley)—have come into the Chamber to give their support.
  I should like first to mention a gentleman whom I shall not name, because of sensitivity about the names of those who served in Ulster in defusing terrorist bombs. It is sufficient to say that not only is he a Member of the Order of the British Empire, he has won the George medal once and then a bar to that George medal.
  In a letter to my predecessor, Sir Michael Grylls, that gentleman states:
  "My credentials for writing in support of Col. Miller's application to the Committee on Awards to Inventors (COATI) are 23 years in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (now the Royal Logistics Corps) working solely in the field of explosives and munitions. I joined the Metropolitan Police Explosives Officers in 1973 and became head of that department in 1985 until my retirement in December 1991. I was awarded a George Medal for my bomb disposal work in Northern Ireland, an MBE for gallantry for defusing car bombs in London and a Bar to the George Medal for making safe a device in Oxford Street in 1981."
  He is clearly a gentleman who speaks from extensive experience. Moreover, he continues to work on explosives ordnance disposal in retirement.
  The gentleman goes on to say:
  "I first met Col. Miller in 1972 during my tour of duty as an EOD"—
  explosives ordnance disposal—
  "Officer in Belfast. As you may know, 1972 was a particularly conspicuous year so far as terrorist bombs were concerned and, during that year, the EOD teams in Northern Ireland dealt with 4,295 incidents involving the use of explosives or suspected explosives.
  1246
  Between January 1971 and August 1972, eight EOD operators were killed while attempting to defuse bombs in Northern Ireland. Wheelbarrow"—
  the piece of equipment invented by my constituent—
  "was first brought into use in late August 1972 and, in the period September 1972-December 1973, only three operators died. This downward trend in mortality of EOD Officers has continued to the present day and, despite the relatively high level of terrorist bombing, only one operator has been killed in the last seven years. Although it is impossible to state categorically that the dramatic reduction in loss of lives and casualties is solely due to the introduction of Wheelbarrow, there is no doubt the machine played—and continues to play—a major role. In my opinion these figures alone bear testimony to the exceptional and life-saving nature of Col. Miller's invention. It has also led to radical changes in bomb disposal methods which, in turn, have resulted in terrorists changing their tactics.
  The difficulties being experienced by the troops on the ground in Northern Ireland during 1972 was mentioned 'in passing' by the Chief Ammunition Technical Officer (CATO) to Col. Miller. Col. Miller went away, put on his thinking cap and, largely in his own spare time, developed Wheelbarrow and produced several prototypes."
  I should say that the genesis of the concept of Wheelbarrow occurred well before any conversation about the need for a new device in Northern Ireland. In 1970, my constituent had invented a technique for mowing the lawn at his own house by remote control. He attached a Suffolk Punch petrol-driven lawn mower by a long lanyard to a central post of such a diameter that the 14 in lawn mower would generate a 12 in cut in the lawn. He was also able to steer the machine by hand at the end of the lanyard.
  The other matter that I should mention is that it has consistently been suggested by Ministry of Defence officials that my constituent, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, was "paid to invent", and that therefore the development of Wheelbarrow was part of his "normal duties". That aspect of the matter is the one that most irritates and annoys Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, as his work was as a gunnery trials officer. He did much distinguished work developing gunnery equipment. However, by no stretch of the imagination could a gunnery trials officer have had it regarded as part of his normal duties to develop a bomb disposal vehicle equipment. I shall, later in my speech, provide supporting testimony on that matter.
  The gentleman went on to say:
  "I understand that one of COATI's objections to granting an award to Col. Miller is that inventing was part of his job. That is certainly not my experience of Trials Officers. In fact, I cannot think of another Trials Officer at MVEE (now Test and Evaluation Establishment) Chertsey who has invented anything, either then or since, let alone an invention as ground-breaking as Wheelbarrow.
  Wheelbarrow was—and still is—a pioneering piece of equipment. It has contributed greatly to British exports over the years in that numerous foreign governments and organisations, recognising Wheelbarrow's use and technical achievement, have purchased many hundreds of the machines. I believe this is further evidence of the fact that Col. Miller 'got it right'."
  Sir John Stanley: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware that I believe, certainly from my time both as Minister for the Armed Forces and in Northern Ireland, that Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's Wheelbarrow invention is the single most important breakthrough in bomb disposal technology that has been achieved anywhere in the world

  1247
  since the second world war? It has been of the most profound benefit to our own country in securing the removal of bombs in a manner that does not endanger life.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who speaks from his extensive experience as a former Northern Ireland Minister. I know that my constituent will be delighted to hear his words. I am sure that the Minister and the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), will take his comments very seriously.
  The gentleman went on to say:
  "It is of great personal regret that Wheelbarrow has not been acknowledged as an invention of singular brilliance. Several friends of mine died in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorist bombs prior to the invention of Wheelbarrow. Obviously, I cannot say for certain that these friends would have lived if Wheelbarrow had been around, but I can assuredly say they would have stood a far better chance.
  Prior to 1972, terrorist devices could be made safe only by dismantling them by hand. This was recognised as a very dangerous practice but there was no other reliable method. Then, in the early part of 1972, a new method of terrorist bomb disposal was introduced. In basic terms, this relied on disrupting the circuitry of a bomb by means of an explosively-propelled jet of water. The technique is known as 'disruption' and the first British disruptor was codenamed Pigstick'. It was highly successful and gave the EOD operator a very good chance of defeating a bomb no matter how complex the fusing system or how many anti-handling devices it incorporated.
  Unfortunately, the Pigstick is an extremely short-range weapon and, to be effective, the muzzle must be placed within 3 ins of the bomb. This meant, of course, that the EOD operators still had to approach the bomb to place the Pigstick."
  The gentleman states that terrorists
  "soon recognised—and exploited—this weakness and changed their tactics in two ways:

  1. Hand-delivered bombs were fitted with time fuses which were set to expire around the time of arrival of the EOD operator on the scene.

  2. The use of car bombs increased dramatically as"

  terrorists
  "realised that the Pigstick was virtually useless against such bombs.
  The danger from the hand-delivered bomb was largely overcome by regulation insisting on long soak times. This reduced the risk to operators but it meant that virtually all hand-delivered bombs exploded and hoax calls caused huge disruption.
  The major problem, however, was that of car bombs. These normally contain very large charges of explosive and are capable of causing death, injuries and damage over considerable areas. Moreover, as the car bombs of that period could not be disrupted by Pigstick",
  terrorists
  "continued to fit the cars with anti-handling devices.
  Although there was no clear idea of how to tackle a car bomb it was realised that the ability to safely move a suspect vehicle would be a great advantage. Blast overpressure resulting from a detonation of a charge of explosive falls off very rapidly as the distance from the seat of the explosion increases and moving a car bomb just 10 metres could make the difference between major structural damage and nothing more than broken windows. Various agencies were approached for help and although the problem was addressed with enthusiasm the early results were disappointing … although the machines came in a great variety of shapes and sizes, they all had one common failing—they were totally impractical for use outside a workshop and were often of hindrance rather than help to EOD officers.
  Col. Miller put his mind to the matter and the first Wheelbarrow was conceived and delivered in a remarkably short time. This machine was eminently practical, very reliable and cheap and it
  1248
  dramatically reduced the odds against the EOD man. It may well be viewed now that the early machines were simple but … in 1972, on the streets of Northern Ireland, the invention was definitely considered to be of exceptional brilliance and utility.
  With a reliable, easy-to-use robot vehicle available, it became possible for EOD operators to attach tow ropes to suspect cars in relative safety. Once a tow rope had been attached it was a simple matter to pull the suspect vehicle to a position where, should the car bomb explode, it would be less likely to cause injuries or major damage to property. Towing the suspect vehicle away from the target was undoubtedly a great help but it still left the EOD operator with the problem of making the vehicle safe. Having been told of the problem, Col Miller designed and developed a range of attachments which enabled Wheelbarrow to carry and position various disruptive EOD weapons. In use, the Wheelbarrow carried the selected weapon to the vehicle, placed the weapon in the optimum attack position before withdrawing to a safe area.
  Judged by today's standards, the methods of delivery and the weapons might be thought crude but they were surprisingly successful and, for the first time, it became possible to render safe a car bomb without endangering the life of an EOD operator.
  Having done much to help reduce the dangers presented by car bombs, Col Miller then devised a method of attaching Pigstick to Wheelbarrow. This too was a success and it became possible to safely attack a hand-delivered bomb within minutes of the EOD operator arriving on the scene of an incident. There is no doubt the ability to render-safe time bombs using the Wheelbarrow/Pigstick combination was a huge step forward compared to the previous practice of 'soak times' which allowed the majority of the devices to detonate.
  As will be seen from above, the introduction of Wheelbarrow had profound effects on both terrorist tactics and the safety of bomb disposal operators. It is impossible to give hard and fast statistics regarding just how many lives Col Miller's machines have saved but, in the period 1972–1978, and taking into account machines which had been exported, over 400 Wheelbarrows were destroyed while dealing with terrorist devices. In many of these cases, it can be assumed that the loss of a machine represented the saving of an EOD man's life."
  Having heard that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will understand why I feel very strongly that my constituent deserves the recognition that he has been denied.
  Very belatedly—in 1996—officials finally acknowledged in writing to my predecessor that there was no question but that Lieutenant Colonel Miller's invention was of enormous use. Unfortunately, despite that acknowledgement, it was still not regarded as being outside the scope of his normal duties. Before I ask the Minister to respond to this serious issue, I shall provide other supporting testimony which shows that the invention was outside his normal duties.
  The following testimony comes from a gentleman who held the rank of brigadier—again, I shall not mention his name for obvious reasons—and who was a deputy director and head of the Trials Division. He states:
  "No formal order was ever given to Lieutenant Colonel Miller but, after failing to find an answer to the problem using existing equipment and techniques he turned, relying on his own initiative and imagination, to outside sources and came up with an electrically powered garden instrument produced by a local firm. This he took and adapted, uniquely and ingeniously, to become the prototype of the anti-terrorist weapon known as `Wheelbarrow' which has been so successfully and spectacularly used in Northern Ireland.
  Fortunate in having at his disposal in the Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment, the facilities to develop and test his ideas, the whole concept nevertheless, starting from an imprecise requirement, culminated in an ingeniously practical machine which was undoubtedly the fruit of Lieutenant Colonel Miller's fertile imagination and determination to succeed."

  1249
  I now cite another gentleman who was greatly involved. He was a chartered engineer and a member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. He states:
  "During our discussion, I mentioned the fact that had we"—
  those in his division—
  "been told in March of 1972 that Weapons Trials"—
  the department for which Lieutenant-Colonel Miller worked—
  "was about to develop a wheeled or tracked vehicle to meet a specific IS requirement under the terms of the GSOR, we would certainly have objected, through the proper channels, to that action. It would certainly not have been within the scope of Weapons Trials objectives to embark on such a course of action. The divisions of responsibility between the various Branches as they were then called, were quite clearly defined; and no doubt they still are to-day albeit since becoming a Defence Research Agency".
  Writing to Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, this senior gentleman said:
  "As I have said before, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind as to the true origin of 'Wheelbarrow'; that was clearly and unequivocally to your credit and yours alone."
  All the correspondence that I have seen says the same.
  Another retired officer states:
  "I can confirm that, prior to and during the initial development work on Wheelbarrow, while I was Superintendent, Weapon Trials, there was no duty placed upon the Section to design or develop any form of wheeled or tracked vehicle, for EOD or any other purpose, and I cannot recall such activities being written into the Job Descriptions of any member of my staff.
  I well remember at the time you telling me that the idea for Wheelbarrow had arisen from your private efforts to produce a labour saving method for mowing your extensive lawn.
  If it had been within the jurisdiction of Weapon Trials to design and develop such a vehicle, I would have expected that the work on Wheelbarrow would have remained the responsibility of the Section … instead of being passed over to VE(L) … just at a time when the initial concept had been fully vindicated".
  Referring to officials' suggestion that Lieutenant-Colonel Miller was paid to invent the Wheelbarrow, another senior person stated:
  "There was no scope for invention by a Trials Design Officer (`TDO') within the TS"—
  or trials specification. He continued:
  "neither is there reference in the job description for a TDO `to invent'. Hence the comment that Col Miller was 'paid to invent' is, in my opinion, erroneous."
  I could say far more. Given that we are talking about a vital piece of bomb disposal equipment that has saved hundreds of lives, not only in the Province but around the world, proper recognition for the gentleman who invented it is long overdue. After the long saga of the issue having been raised by my predecessor and now by me, it is time, for the sake of other officers who may come up with life-saving or otherwise helpful equipment, for the Committee on Awards to Inventors to recognise my constituent's claim.
  1.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Let me make it clear at the outset that while there is clearly no case for a monetary award to Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, his work, that of his team—the Motor Vehicles and Engineering
  1250
  Establishment—and of others who contributed to the success of the Wheelbarrow bomb disposal vehicle is fully recognised and appreciated by the Ministry of Defence. That work has without question saved many lives and the destruction of much property, as was well described by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). However, we are today dealing with the question whether the hon. Gentleman's constituent qualifies for an award from the Committee on Awards to Inventors.
  As has been made clear, this case relates to events which took place more than 25 years ago. In 1973, the Department's Committee on Awards to Inventors, known as COATI, a body that was set up many years before to make discretionary awards for inventions produced by civilian and military personnel, received an application for an award from Lieutenant-Colonel Miller for Wheelbarrow.
  By that time, COATI had considered and made awards for inventions ranging from gas turbines to electronics and covering chemical, electrical and mechanical inventions. COATI was staffed by experienced people including patent agents and by others with scientific, engineering or legal backgrounds. There is no doubt that COATI was a well-run and properly staffed committee which had the right expertise and the right qualifications. It had to make difficult decisions within the terms of reference that it had been set. It had been given, and had to maintain, standards to help it to determine whether an award should be made and, if so, the right and proper amount of that award.
  All COATI awards were and, indeed, are made on an ex gratia basis at the absolute discretion of the Department. There is no formal entitlement to an award, and it is exceptional to have a case reconsidered by COATI.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's first application to COATI was made in 1973 through his establishment at Chertsey, the Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment, known as the MVEE. The application for an award for the Wheelbarrow invention was made by Lieutenant-Colonel Miller and members of MVEE workshop staff, and considered on three different occasions by COATI. As I said, that was fairly unprecedented.
  The committee was strongly of the view that the work on Wheelbarrow appeared to be in response to an official requirement and was no more than might have been expected by the individuals concerned. Lieutenant-Colonel Miller was status-barred by reason of his positions at MVEE from receiving any financial award as he was carrying out work that he was paid to do, and the invention, although useful, and vital, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath aptly described it in introducing the debate, was not considered to be of exceptional utility and exceptional brilliance. In other words, it had to meet both those criteria.
  The applications by the workshop staff were referred back to a local committee for consideration of local awards which were made. Undoubtedly, the work that was done by Lieutenant-Colonel Miller and his team at the time was important and was to have a significant effect on bomb disposal, particularly in Northern Ireland.
  The application was considered further by COATI in April 1975 and it was decided that, as a member of the professional and scientific class who could well have been

  1251
  expected to make inventions in his field of work, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller was not eligible for an award. I repeat that further consideration is unusual.
  The matter was considered a third time on 24 July 1975, when COATI had the benefit of advice from one of the deputy controllers of establishments and research and the director of MVEE, who were of the view that no award was appropriate because of Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's position at the time and the duties that he was being paid to carry out. On that basis, once again, COATI concluded that no award should be made.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Having heard the account by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and having read his brief, the Minister clearly must have reached a personal judgment about the merits of the case. Perhaps we could hear his personal judgment as to whether an invention that has saved so many lives is worth an award.
  Mr. Spellar: We charge those on the committee with the relevant technical expertise with making those decisions, which should not be overridden by ministerial judgment. I am not technically qualified to make a judgment as to whether an invention is of exceptional utility and of exceptional brilliance. That is a matter for professional judgment.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: Churchill did.
  Mr. Spellar: We sometimes hear some interesting interventions from the hon. Gentleman. As he should know, having been on the payroll of the Ministry of Defence, we have proper committees to deal with such matters, and this case has been reconsidered. It has also been considered by a number of Ministers, as I shall explain in a moment. I do not remember whether Churchill dealt with the case of Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, but I bow to the knowledge of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The sedentary comments by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) are now becoming disruptive.
  Mr. Spellar: A few years later, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller decided to make a direct application to COATI for an award. His words at the time were:
  "As far as I am aware the fully story was not revealed. I feel therefore, in justice to myself, that I should submit the whole story as I saw it."
  The second application gave further details of Wheelbarrow and ran to some 31 pages with accompanying photographs of various marks of Wheelbarrow. It represented a complete description of his work, and the whole text was considered by the committee in the light of his previous application.
  The committee once again concluded that no award should be made because he was status-barred at the time he carried out his work on Wheelbarrow. The committee, which had great experience in such matters, concluded that his work on Wheelbarrow was work that would have been expected by an officer at that level and in the circumstances that prevailed at the time. That is not to
  1252
  say that the committee disagreed with Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's version of events, but considered that his status was a bar to an award.
  In between the two applications for an award for Wheelbarrow, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller discussed his application with his Member of Parliament at the time, Michael Grylls, who wrote on his behalf to the then Minister of State for Defence, Dr. John Gilbert. His reply was that Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's case had been considered with great care by COATI, and that a Crown servant employed and paid to carry out research and development work is not eligible for an award unless his invention displays exceptional brilliance and exceptional utility.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does the Minister recognise the intense frustration on the part of my constituent? It appears to me that the basic misunderstanding that the invention was part of his normal work led to all the subsequent rejections. What is happening again today as the Minister reads out his prepared brief is a repeat of the same answer which the independent testimony of the officers involved completely undermines. That is what is so frustrating for my constituent. It is a factual error.
  Mr. Spellar: Many of our constituents are frustrated. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. In this instance, the Department believes that the committee is right and the individual constituent is wrong.
  As hon. Members will remember, COATI awards are made on an ex gratia basis at the absolute discretion of the Department. However, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller persisted and wrote again to his Member of Parliament, Mr. Michael Grylls, who wrote to the Department. The then Minister of State for Defence, Lord Strathcona, replied that the claim had been considered long and hard at the time and a judgment made that it did not meet the stringent criteria laid down. It is understood that, by 1980, Mr. Grylls was satisfied that the matter had been fully considered.
  I would add that the exchange of correspondence and the detailed consideration by Ministers of both parties and by officials over the past 20 years was unprecedented. I find it slightly surprising that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), who served as a Minister in the Department at the time, and other hon. Members who were on the payroll of the Department should appear in the Chamber today. The case has been fully considered, and exceptionally so. No other COATI case has been given such detailed consideration by so many individuals, including COATI members, the director and other staff of MOD's directorate of intellectual property rights and the director-general of contracts.
  In 1996, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller again asked his Member of Parliament, by then Sir Michael Grylls, to take up the matter with the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). A meeting was arranged, and it was concluded that no new information of significance had come to light that would warrant reopening the case. We believe that still to be the position today. However, the 1997 election brought a new Member for Surrey Heath, and, as hon. Members realise, this often leads to a temporary burst of old cases. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman

  1253
  was approached by Lieutenant-Colonel Miller and has been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend Lord Gilbert, who has been reincarnated as Minister of State for Defence Procurement.
  It is important to note that, at the time the applications for an award were made by Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, the COATI rules required that, if the inventor was status-barred, as was the case with Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, an award could be made only if the invention was of exceptional utility and exceptional brilliance. The committee looked carefully at the invention on several occasions and, in the light of its experience, decided that it did not qualify. It did not meet the criteria by which other inventions were judged.
  The Department has dealt with Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's claims for an award with great patience and forbearance over a long period. We are satisfied that the matter has been dealt with properly and fairly. There is no evidence that leads us to believe otherwise. We cannot arbitrarily and retrospectively change the rules. That would be unfair to all the other applicants over the years who have not qualified for a COATI award. That has been made clear to Lieutenant-Colonel Miller and to his current and previous Members of Parliament. We believe that the case should be laid to rest.

  SARP (UK) Ltd.
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: There have been two major incidents of clouds of acid vapour escaping from SARP (UK) Ltd. at Killamarsh in my constituency. They presented considerable and serious dangers to the residents of Killamarsh and the surrounding built-up areas, including parts of the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). The plant is situated close to housing and within a few hundred yards of a junior school. It is also on the border of the Rother Valley country park—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley in the Chamber—which is used by thousands of people.
  The first incident occurred on 14 May. I explained the events in detail to the House in a speech on 20 May. I shall not repeat the points that I made then, not least because the case is being placed before the courts in a prosecution by the Environment Agency. However, I should like to place on record details of the second major incident and subsequent events before making some general comments. Although the matters that I shall refer to are under investigation by the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, no official reports or prosecutions on them have yet seen the light of day. In the absence of such prosecutions, I am free to speak about the issues.
  The second major incident took place on 30 May. I visited the site soon after, and met local residents. I have not been able to inform the House of the second incident until now, having been out of parliamentary action from 4 June because of a stroke. Apart from the short recall of Parliament following the tragedy at Omagh, the House has not met for 12 weeks.
  However, I raised the issue through early-day motion 1385 on 3 June, and presented a petition to the House on 24 July on behalf of 7,000 residents in north-east Derbyshire, Killamarsh, Rother Valley and Sheffield, Attercliffe—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe is also in his place. I should like to mention on the record the help that I obtained from my agent Bob Harper and other Labour party members in the Killamarsh area during my illness and subsequently.
  The SARP plant at Killamarsh is a chemical reclamation plant. At its acid-alkali treatment plant, there were four storage tanks surrounded by a concrete bund near the base. On 30 May, one of the tanks collapsed, with two thirds of its sides immediately disintegrating. The tank contained nine tonnes of liquids, 26 per cent. of the contents being nitric acid.
  As the liquid, including considerable amounts of acid, fell into the bund, a huge orange cloud of acid vapour rose and escaped. The atmospheric conditions were poor and the acid cloud moved back to the site and its vicinity before slowly dispersing. Firefighters who went to tackle the toxic spill were initially refused entry to the plant on the grounds that the matter was under control, even though the plant's fire hose, which had been found to be defective on 14 May, had not been put right by 30 May.
  That second major incident, just 16 days after the first escape of acid vapour from a tanker, had a dramatic impact on officialdom, the local communities and SARP.

  1255
  The authorities—the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency—set up investigations into that further major incident, and embarked on a full audit of all the processes at the plant.
  The reaction of the communities in Killamarsh and surrounding areas was dramatic. Everyone had had enough, and demanded the removal of the plant to a site away from areas of population. A residents committee was formed, known as RASP—an anagram of SARP that stands for Residents Against SARP Pollution. It has persistently campaigned for the closure of the plant in dramatic style, including a visit to SARP's parent company, Vivendi in Paris—a multinational that is embarrassed because it likes to portray itself as environmentally friendly.
  The parish council, the district council, the local county councillor Alan Charles and the three Members of Parliament have all made vigorous representations to my right hon. Friend Minister for the Environment. We are all thankful to my right hon. Friend for visiting SARP and meeting representatives of RASP and the councils in Killamarsh on 29 July. However, the determination of the residents did not come out of the blue. It has built up over a long period, which included an explosion at the site in 1986, when the plant was run by Leigh Environmentals.
  I took a deputation to meet the Minister for small firms, Mr. David Trippier, even though I was not a Member of Parliament at the time. That deputation was made up of local councillors and representatives of KRAC—the Killamarsh Residents Action Committee. I placed details of those and further serious matters before the House when I became a Member of Parliament, most notably in an Adjournment debate on 28 February 1990. There had been the additional possibility of the infamous Karen B being brought to this country, with materials from it being likely to go to the Killamarsh site.
  Astonishingly, although SARP has been under constant supervision by the Killamarsh community since the second incident, it has failed to get its act together. A catalogue of incidents has been unearthed. On the day of my right hon. Friend's visit to Killamarsh, it was discovered that barrels of rocket fuel were stored close to the local junior school. My right hon. Friend will remember his visit to the school playing field, with the SARP site starkly nearby.
  The consignment of rocket fuel came in 1,507 drums in 20 deliveries between 1993 and 1995. Of those, 184 were left to deteriorate and had to be stored under water. Some of the remaining drums were incinerated, while others remain in storage on the site. I know that my right hon. Friend is concerned about the matter, which is under investigation by the Environment Agency, as are another five incidents.
  First, waste was left on the ground, with serious smells affecting the community, when an old storage tank was being cleaned out. Secondly, substantial off site odours were caused following leachate recycling. Thirdly, 20 tonnes of slurry were dumped on a landfill site. There are questions as to how that met the provisions of the waste disposal licence. Fourthly, the recirculation of effluent in storage tanks caused serious smells. Fifthly, a gas scrubber was not properly maintained, leading to a further inability to remove smells from waste.
  There have been numerous other incidents, such as the sample bottles of aniline carried from Killamarsh to Teesside by TNT that leaked en route. The material is
  1256
  hazardous, and causes skin and eye irritation. TNT was not informed of the contents of the bottles. Past carbon monoxide releases from the incinerator have also been found not to have complied with the licence. Then a tanker started to leave the site, although a worker was still on top of it.
  In addition to the responses of officialdom and the community, and because of them, SARP has had to react. It closed down the six chemical reclamation processes at the plant following the incident on 30 May. Although the company attempted to restart the secondary liquid fuel plant within 48 hours, it backed off when I objected to the Health and Safety Executive. On 18 June, however, as I was leaving hospital, the process was reopened—not least because it accounts for 48 per cent. of SARP's turnover on the site. The other processes have remained closed down—20 weeks after the tank collapsed.
  SARP has announced its intention to transfer its acid plant, oil plant and transport depot from Killamarsh, while reducing the number of drums on site, including the rocket fuel. It claimed to me that that will involve the end of emissions into sewers, which have caused major unrest in the area for years. I welcome SARP's belated recognition that too many processes operate on the site, and appreciate that employees need to be fully consulted about transfer arrangements, as they will affect half the 110 jobs on the site.
  SARP's proposals still leave us with the secondary fuel plant in operation, and would involve the reopening of the incinerator and the solvent recovery plant. We are awaiting the outcome of the reports of the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, including the audit of the plant. Those could lead to SARP having to remove more, or even all, of the operations from Killamarsh. I am therefore keen that the official reports into incidents should be completed as soon as possible and put into the public domain. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to respond specifically to that point.
  I am also concerned about whether highly critical reports of SARP will be enough to prompt the authorities to take action to close down SARP's remaining processes. A House of Commons Library briefing tells me that, under part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990,
  "local authorities are statutorily obliged to include conditions in any authorisations they issue which are designed to ensure that the process is operated under the Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost … to prevent and minimise emissions of prescribed substances and to render harmless any substance that may be emitted … local authorities can issue enforcement, variation, prohibition and revocation notices to ensure that appropriate standards of control are met, and raised in line with new techniques and new awareness of environmental risk. Prohibition notices are a mechanism for stopping a process if there is an imminent risk of serious pollution of the environment."
  Will fresh legislation be needed to strengthen such provisions so that the experiences of the long-suffering residents of Killamarsh may come to shape legislation that will have a wider application in protection against industrial pollution?
  A series of reports is being prepared about SARP's operation at Killamarsh. The Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency are conducting three major reports—plus six other investigations, which I have described. SARP commissioned a report by W. S. Atkins after the first incident; it has not seen the light of day. The company is going on to commission a unit at Sheffield

  1257
  university to produce a further report, and the area's Member of the European Parliament is undertaking his own inquiry. RASP has been first off the blocks and has published a report. In fact, SARP has responded to it—it was published yesterday—in a four-page fax to me. That response is somewhat more speedy than the emergence of the reports that it has commissioned.
  It is essential that the mountain of paperwork produces results. After all, actions speak louder than wordy surveys. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to the points that I have placed on record, especially in connection with the availability of reports and whether consideration has been given to improvements in environmental protection legislation in order to ensure that the type of problems that have for so long occurred in Killamarsh begin to be solved—not just there but in other communities.
  1.44 pm
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has secured a debate on this important subject. I pay him a very great tribute for the extremely thorough and persistent manner in which he has pursued this serious case—not least because, as he said, in the middle of the events, he was struck down by illness. I know that I speak for everyone present when I say that we are delighted to see him again fully active, in pursuit of these matters with all his accustomed vigour.
  I should express my real and unreserved sympathy and concern for the Killamarsh residents' worry and anger about the two occurrences that my hon. Friend has described. As he said, I have taken the opportunity to visit the plant in order to see for myself at first hand what has led to the concerns. I want to put on record how tremendously impressed I was by the poignant and forceful manner in which members of Residents Against SARP Pollution presented their case. It made a very big impression on me.
  Having said that, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand why I cannot comment on the two specific incidents on the SARP site—not least because it would involve a discussion of matters that are before the courts. Another key constraint that prevents me from discussing the specific issues is that activities at the site are subject to waste management licensing. The Secretary of State exercises a quasi-judicial role in relation to appeals by waste management licence holders or applicants against licensing decisions made by the Environment Agency. I therefore cannot comment on any individual case that may become the subject of one of those appeals. Having said that, I shall still do everything I can to deal with the issues raised.
  As my hon. Friend said, the Killamarsh site is a waste treatment site which has been in operation for several years. At the end of last year, its operation was taken over by SARP (UK) Ltd. To be fair, the company inherited a legacy left by the previous owners and operators of the site. None the less, the legal responsibility for the two incidents in May and other concerns rests with SARP.
  As a result of investigations by the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency into the first incident on 14 May, SARP (UK) Ltd has been charged
  1258
  with contravention of section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, regulation 10 of the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Regulations 1996, and section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  The other incident took place on 30 May. A Health and Safety Executive inspector attended the site on the day of the incident, where he met my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire and several parish councillors. He advised that, following the investigation of the incident and the previous one, there would be a comprehensive inspection and audit of all activities carried out on the site. The investigation into the second incident is highly complex, and may yet take several more weeks before it is concluded.
  Several key actions have been taken since the very regrettable incidents in May.
  First, an off-site safety plan is now being developed by SARP in co-operation with the local emergency authorities. Secondly, all processes on the site were suspended following the incident. Some have restarted to a limited extent, following detailed audits by HSE and the other authorities. Others, including the acid plant that was responsible for the incidents, have been closed down permanently.
  Thirdly, my hon. Friend asked about publication of the HSE audit, and I am glad to say that it will be made public in full. Fourthly, SARP has appointed Sheffield university's environmental consultancy to undertake a full and independent audit of the site. The recommendations of that will be published, and SARP has committed itself publicly to implementing them all. Fifthly, HSE and the Environment Agency continue to monitor closely the activities on the site, and are co-operating fully with one another.
  Such serious incidents raise many issues concerning underlying standards, procedures and systems, and I shall try to deal briefly with the main questions. The waste management licensing system established under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is intended to ensure that waste management activities do not cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. I note my hon. Friend's lengthy list of the company's alleged breaches of consent.
  Anyone who deposits, recovers or disposes of controlled waste without a waste management licence, or contrary to the conditions of a waste management licence, or in a way that causes pollution or harm to health, commits a criminal offence. There are strict penalties for such offences. For example, the maximum penalty for the illegal management of special waste is five years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine.
  My hon. Friend asked whether additional legislation was needed. I am happy to reconsider that question, but I do not believe it is. I believe that adequate powers are already there, and it is up to the authorities to exercise them where any of the licence conditions are not met.
  The Environment Agency already has extensive powers to take enforcement action against the holder of a waste management licence. It may modify a licence in whatever way is necessary to ensure that it does not cause pollution to the environment or harm to human health, or become seriously detrimental to the amenities of the locality affected by the activities. That is a significant power, and I look to the agency to exercise it.

  1259
  Where the agency considers that there is an imminent risk of serious pollution, it has a duty to serve a prohibition notice specifying the risk and the steps to be taken to overcome it, and suspending the authorisation for whatever aspects of the operation are causing the risk.
  I addition, the agency has the power to revoke an authorization—in effect, to shut down the process—where, for example, there has been persistent failure to comply with conditions. I heard what my hon. Friend said about that. It is, of course, for the agency to decide what action is appropriate in which circumstances. For the reasons that I have already given, I cannot comment on whether it would be appropriate to take action along those lines in the case of the Killamarsh site. I can only repeat that I listened attentively to what my hon. Friend said, and those words too will be noted by the Environment Agency.
  I shall now talk about standards regulating tankers. The first incident involved a vacuum-operated waste tanker, and I am aware that my hon. Friend is concerned that standards for tankers may be less rigorous in the United Kingdom than in other European countries. I have looked into the subject, and let me assure him that that is not the case. Regulations for the domestic transport of dangerous goods in all EC member states are essentially harmonised as a result of the ADR framework directive adopted in November 1994.
  The introduction into ADR of requirements for vacuum-operated waste tankers has been a United Kingdom initiative, and the adopted text is based primarily on existing UK controls. UK safety requirements for such tankers have therefore been accepted by Europe as the best model for future regulation.
  Mr. Barnes: The Minister is aware that, as he told me in a parliamentary answer, there have been about 125 incidents involving leakage from tankers over the past 10 years. I do not believe that, until the incident on 14 May, any of those incidents concerned vehicles operated by Leigh Environmentals or SARP. However, there has since been a second incident involving a SARP tanker, near Grantham, which caused considerable leakage on the M1
  Even if we are in line with European standards, it is a matter for consideration whether the regulations on the movement of materials about the country are tight enough. One of the problems is that the first incident at Killamarsh might have happened not on the site but in transit. It was bad enough at the site, but it could have happened in all sorts of more dangerous conditions—either at the origin of the goods being moved or during transit through heavily populated areas.
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is true that there have been many instances of
  1260
  leaks from tankers either in transit or at their destination, as was the case with the first SARP incident. I am concerned about that, and I am asking HSE to investigate whether there is a pattern behind the large number of incidents, and whether there is a case for revision of the regulations.
  My understanding is that the regulations are tight and clear, and that the incidents have largely been caused either by human error or by management failure. However, I accept the fact that the number of incidents is sufficiently high to warrant further examination. I will have that undertaken, and will then report to my hon. Friend.
  Sheffield council has called for an official public inquiry into the activities on the Killamarsh site. Having been there and talked to the residents in Residents Against SARP Pollution, and having seen how the site is cheek by jowl with the local community, I have every sympathy with that request. However, I have to bear in mind the constraints imposed by the legal proceedings now under way, the impact of which I trust I have made clear. It is very unlikely that any public inquiry could start substantive considerations until the legal proceedings are concluded.
  As I have already said, SARP itself has announced that it has appointed Sheffield university's environmental consultancy to undertake a full and independent inquiry into operations at Killamarsh. I have been formally advised that SARP will refocus and simplify operations at the site to make it more manageable. That will include a substantial clean-up of the facility.
  As my hon. Friend knows, I have enormous sympathy with the local strength of feeling, and will continue to take a close interest in developments.
  Mr. Barnes: I thank the Minister for the nature of his response. I know that he takes the issue seriously. For my 11 years as a Member of Parliament, I have been concerned with the issues surrounding the site, and my right hon. Friend's responses today are much more serious than those that I received from the previous Administration when we were dealing with such problems many years ago.
  Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I must choose my words carefully here, but I am inclined to say that the previous Government undervalued health and safety issues. The present Government take such issues extremely seriously. Two worrying incidents involving SARP have taken place within a fortnight of each other, and, having listened for several hours to the people who experienced the consequences, I intend to ensure that justice is done.
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—

  Press Officers
  Mr. Jim Cousins: What new guidance he has issued to (a) press officers and (b) press advisers of Ministers in departments. [54712]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The values and conventions which govern the work of press officers—both permanent civil servants and special advisers—are set out in guidance on the work of the Government Information Service, published in July 1997.
  As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government are currently considering a recommendation from the Select Committee on Public Administration for further guidance.
  Mr. Cousins: I welcome the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to his new position, where he will display his style, robustness and determination. When the Prime Minister created the new Cabinet Office in July, he made it clear that the head of the Government Information Service would be part of that office, and that the Cabinet Office would be responsible for the overall presentation and corporate management of government and Government policy.
  Does my right hon. Friend have the power and the authority under the new regime to ensure that there is no secondary market in information and access to information; that all aspects of government—all facts, policies and debates—will be presented in a proper fashion and that there will be no question of privateering and spin in such matters? Is the ministerial team satisfied that it now has that power?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will do all within his extensive powers to effect the co-ordination of the development and the presentation of policy across government under the direction of the Prime Minister.
  I can also assure my hon. Friend that the head of the Government Information Service is now based in the Cabinet Office, directly answerable to the head of the home civil service. That is part of our stated commitment to make presentation an essential ingredient in the success of the Government. At the heart of our modus operandi is a commitment to ensuring that we have a co-ordinated view on policy and that it is presented robustly, and with strong political guidance.
  Sir Peter Emery: Will the Parliamentary Secretary have a word with his right hon. Friend the Minister—whom we congratulate on his appointment—not about press advisers, but about efforts to ensure that press statements are made in this House by the Ministers responsible? Will he ensure that they are not spun out with a lot of words, as we have just heard in the Parly Secretary reply to the previous question?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman considered my answer verbose. It was not intended to be—it was intended to be a full answer to a series of questions. The statements made in the House will continue to be germane to the subject matter.
  Sir George Young: On behalf of the Opposition, may I also welcome the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), to his new position and wish him well? No doubt any sadness that he feels at leaving the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be compensated for by the pleasure that he will get from enforcing Government policies on reluctant colleagues.
  To revert to the question about the Government Information Service, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) asked, is it not misleading for the annual report to airbrush out all references to bad news, such as the Bernie Ecclestone affair, the difficulties over Sierra Leone and corruption in local government, to name but three? Would it not be better if the Prime Minister presented his report not in the rose garden at No. 10 before his cronies, but in the Chamber before all hon. Members?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: It is a travesty of the situation for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the bad news was airbrushed out. Surely the reality is that there has been so much good news that there has been no time to communicate any bad news.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Keith Vaz: What plans he has to increase awareness of civil service careers among the ethnic minority community. [54715]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Cabinet Office and other Departments participate fully in workplace development schemes such as the Windsor fellowship, exhibit at careers and other fairs and undertake outreach work with universities. Nine Whitehall Departments, including mine, will next month be promoting civil service careers at the Mega Mela Asian festival at Birmingham, which is expected to attract more than 100,000 visitors. I will shortly be launching with Sir Richard Wilson, the head of the home civil service, a charter for action to redress under-representation of ethnic minorities in the senior civil service. That initiative has been jointly agreed with the civil service unions.
  Mr. Vaz: May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position and also welcome the initiative undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, including the appointment of Mr. Suma Chakrabarti, who becomes the most senior Asian person in the civil service? Can I tempt my right hon. Friend to go a step further and take a leaf out of the Home Secretary's book by considering the possibility of initiating a system of targets, so that the civil service is truly representative of modern Britain?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and good wishes. We shall soon publish guidelines on the mainstreaming of equality throughout

  1263
  the Government. I can assure him that, as Minister for the Cabinet Office, I will play an important role in taking that forward.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Although I welcome the initiative that the right hon. Gentleman has taken to make job and career opportunities in the civil service as wide as possible, and known about by as many people as possible, will he take this opportunity to stress that people will be appointed on merit?
  Dr. Cunningham: It is one of our guiding principles that people are always appointed on merit, and that will continue to be the case. Nevertheless, we also need to take more effective action to ensure that the under-representation of people from Asian and ethnic communities in senior civil service posts is redressed.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accept my sincere congratulations on his new appointment? One of the great joys of the city of Lancaster is its diverse range of people from different cultural backgrounds. At this stage, can my right hon. Friend tell me what part he intends to play in the celebration in that glorious city of the 600th anniversary of the Duchy of Lancaster? Also, will he please reconsider his use of the description, Minister for the Cabinet Office, as it is certainly no less opaque than Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and it lacks a great deal of style as well?
  Dr. Cunningham: That would never do. First, I must thank my hon. Friend, who represents the wonderful and ancient city of Lancaster, for his kind remarks and good wishes. Perhaps I should point out to him and the House that I have the honour and privilege of two titles: Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is only in the interests of brevity that I use the former and not both when addressing the House.
  As for the celebrations for the 600th anniversary, I hope to play a part in those, too.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How he monitors (a) the effectiveness and (b) the consistency of citizens charters across Government. [54716]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): To support the launch of the new service first programme, we have made available to all public services comprehensive advice on how to draw up effective charters that best meet the needs of users. We have also created a new team in the service first unit to audit the quality and effectiveness of selected national and local charters. Those new initiatives reflect the Government's commitment to first-class, responsive public services.
  Mr. Winterton: I am sure that the Minister accepts that the concept and implementation of the citizens charter were the result of actions taken by the previous Government. Will he also accept that efficiency and all that goes with it will be achieved in the public sector only through the greater involvement of the private sector? Will he turn his attention to the winter fuel payments to
  1264
  pensioners by the Department of Social Security, so that last year's chaos is not repeated this year and so that my excellent pensioners in Macclesfield enjoy a better and more reliable service?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: May I correct the hon. Gentleman's inadvertent misrepresentation? The notion of the citizens charter came from Labour local authorities—specifically York and Nottingham—but we did not mind the previous Government stealing a good idea. His question about winter payments to pensioners should be raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Rural Policies
  Mr. Peter Luff: What plans he has to improve the ordination of the Government's rural policies; and if he will make a statement. [54718]
  Mr. David Winnick: If he will make a statement on the structures for co-ordinating Government policies. [54723]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): My role is to assist my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and ministerial colleagues in the implementation, co-ordination and effective presentation of Government policy. In accordance with the resolution of the House on ministerial accountability made on 19 March 1997, it is for the Ministers to account for the policy decisions and actions of their Departments and next steps agencies. I shall, of course, answer questions on my responsibilities for the work of the Cabinet Office, including the better government agenda, and on my responsibilities as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  Mr. Luff: I am sure that the House realises that MAFF's loss is the Cabinet Office's gain, but, bearing in mind the Minister's recently relinquished responsibilities at MAFF; the growing crisis in rural Britain because of the problems facing British agriculture; the direction in which the common agricultural policy is moving; and the large number of Departments that are concerned with rural policy across the whole waterfront of issues, will he not say something a little more constructive in answer to my question?
  Dr. Cunningham: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I thought that I was answering his question, which was about my role in the co-ordination and presentation of the Government's policies. He mentions rural areas, and I return his compliment in wishing him well in his continuing role as an effective and constructive Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture. He will know that, following the comprehensive spending review and announcements by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the Government are paying greater attention and giving more resources to the undoubted problems in rural areas. I know those problems well, because I represent a rural constituency.
  Mr. Winnick: Is it not necessary to explain to the country, through the co-ordination of policies, why it is absolutely essential to spend the extra £40 billion on schools and health services? In doing so, should it not also be explained why that money was not made available before the election and why, even now, the Conservative Opposition seem very much opposed to its being spent on education and health?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It would certainly help the House and, I think, the country too, if we had a clear exposition of the Opposition's policies in this area. First, my hon. Friend is right to say that the Government are whole-heartedly committed to providing an extra £21 billion for health and £19 billion for education. The shadow Chancellor says that that is extravagance and that the investment should not be made; Opposition spokesmen on health and education say that it is not enough; and the Leader of the Opposition says nothing at all.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: In adding my words of welcome to the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will think again about which title he uses in the House. It is good to see the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) in his place. It is typical of his courtesy to the House that he should be here at this particular Question Time.
  Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that the Government are doing everything to address the plight of the farmers, and will he guarantee to the House that he will assist his successor in getting rid of the ban on beef on the bone, which has been his prime achievement to date as an enforcer and which has done a great deal of damage to British agriculture?
  Dr. Cunningham: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I join him in paying tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). He is not just a right hon. Friend, but a friend. It is a great honour for me to continue the work that he set in train in the Cabinet Office. As for my title, the reality is that the merger of the Office of Public Service and the old Cabinet Office and the new responsibilities that the Prime Minister announced in a written answer to the House on 28 July 1998, at columns 132–34, mean that the overwhelming burden of my responsibilities is to do with the work of the Cabinet Office rather than the Duchy of Lancaster, important though that work will continue to be.
  As for co-ordinating policy on farmers, specific questions about agriculture must remain issues for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On the hon. Gentleman's comments about beef on the bone, the reality is that beef consumption in Britain at present is at a 20-year high, so his suggestion in that connection is wholly misplaced. The biggest problem facing farmers at present, as I am sure he will recognise, is not that ban but the ban on the export of British beef to Europe and elsewhere. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government, including the Prime Minister, are working hard to resolve that problem, which results from the incompetence of the previous Conservative Government.

  Quangos
  Mr. David Heath: How many quangos have been (a) abolished and (b) brought under direct democratic control since 1 May 1997. [54720]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Since 1 May 1997, Ministers have abolished 44 quangos and have announced plans to abolish 37 more. The Government's recent paper "Quangos: Opening the Doors" set out a range of new measures for improving the accountability and openness of all quangos which remain. We have already started to implement these policies, which include supporting and encouraging closer co-operation between local authorities and quangos with local offices.
  Mr. Heath: Here is a job for enforcement, because that really is pitifully slow progress after 18 months. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for Ministers to be appointing about 30,000 people who should be appointed by election by the people, is unacceptable? Does he further agree that replacing Tory cronies with Labour cronies, or even Liberal Democrat cronies, does nothing for accountability or democracy?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's charge, I can only say that he should understand the exact definition of a quango as established by the Conservative Government in 1980. None of those had a locus within local authorities, with the exception of some, such as urban development corporations, which have obviously gone, and the Funding Agency for Schools for England, which will be abolished in 1999. As regards the membership of the quangos, this Government have been far more open about appointments to those quangos and their terms of reference.
  Mr. Andrew Reed: Although I welcome the steps that have been taken so far in abolishing a number of quangos and opening up the process, I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to speak to his colleague, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, particularly since he has just sat beside him, about the future role of the training and enterprise councils, particularly the growth and development of the regional development agencies. If my hon. Friend is looking for a pilot area for regional development agencies to take over the role of the TECs, I suggest that the east midlands should be at the top of the list.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I wish that it was within my gift to make my hon. Friend that promise but, unfortunately, I cannot. The publication "Quangos: Opening the Doors" is only the beginning of a process and, within the Cabinet Office, we continue to review the role, designation and membership of all quangos.
  Mr. Eric Forth: What will the Government do to democratise the gigantic quango that they will create if they go ahead with the ill-thought-out plan to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: The answer is extremely simple. We will be maintaining faith with the electorate. We set out clearly

  1267
  and unequivocally that we would abolish hereditary peerage in the House of Lords as the first stage in its modernisation, and that we fully intend to do.

  Information Technology
  Ms Margaret Moran: What plans he has to use new technology to increase public participation in government. [54725]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): An increasing number of Departments already use the internet to carry out public consultation exercises on policy proposals. We are keen to extend that further and want to encourage wider public participation in government via new technology.
  We will shortly be publishing our market research results on peoples' attitudes to electronic government and intend to use the findings to help ensure that our better government programme will bring government closer to the needs of all our people.
  Ms Moran: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Lady.
  Ms Moran: May I ask my hon. Friend to look seriously at some of the work done by local government, such as the Lewisham democracy project, in the extension of what we now call e-governance and to look at the connecting Canada e-governance strategy which could be of benefit to us? Will he consider incorporating some of those ideas into the eagerly awaited White Paper on better government?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: The former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), went to look at some of those projects. We have considered their place in the better government White Paper and programme. I should point out that, when my hon. Friend was the leader of Lewisham council, she was one of the leaders in all the uses of information technology in delivering better services in that council. We have a programme of visiting many of our local authorities which can provide a lead in this area in partnership with central Government.

  Better Government Project
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: What progress he proposes to make in the next 12 months on the better government project. [54729]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The better government project is one of the Government's and my top priorities. We will publish a White Paper in the spring setting out proposals for modernising government and joining up public services, to secure effective decision making and services that work and respond to the people who need them.
  Mr. Pike: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Can he give me an assurance that, in the discussions that are taking place between national and local government
  1268
  to ensure better co-operation between them, one of the primary objectives is that of replacing 18 years of confrontation and clampdown with co-operation, better government and better service for the people of this country?
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes, Madam Speaker, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Local government remains a key partner in taking forward our preparations for the better government initiative. I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that the invest-to-save budget, announced in the document on modernising public services following the comprehensive spending review, run jointly by the Treasury and the Cabinet Office, is exciting considerable interest. A fund of £150 million over the next three years is available, and public sector organisations will bid for funds to develop projects that bring together two or more public service bodies to deliver services in an innovative and more efficient way. That is another of the many important vehicles for taking forward better government.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Can the Minister explain how it contributes to better government that, while the House was debating defence yesterday, the Prime Minister was briefing Philip Webster and other journalists about a major revision to defence policy with regard to Europe—a proposal about which the House heard nothing during the debate? Was that at worst unco-ordinated government, or was the Defence Secretary holding the House in contempt in the same way as the Prime Minister was?
  Dr. Cunningham: No, it was neither of those. I am sure that the Prime Minister was not briefing Philip Webster, either.

  Public Servants
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: How many representations he has received about employment in the public service of citizens of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland. [54730]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Since April 1998 we have received five representations, including one from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), written with the support of 32 other hon. Members. Some have pressed the case for reversing the 1996 change to the civil service nationality rules. That meant that new entrant Irish and Commonwealth citizens ceased to be eligible for 25 per cent. of civil service posts, known in European Community terms as "public service". Others have sought early progress on introducing legislation to open the civil service to recruitment on merit, regardless of nationality.
  Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend agree that Irish and Commonwealth citizens have traditionally made an important contribution to public service in this country? Given that in June 1996 the previous Government changed the rules so that Irish and Commonwealth citizens are now debarred from some 25 per cent. of civil service posts, will the Government take steps to end such unfair discrimination, which reduces the employment prospects of many individuals and deprives the civil service of many talented potential recruits?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Those in post before 31 May 1996 would be eligible for the full range of civil service posts.

  1269
  Nevertheless, it would require primary legislation to amend the Aliens Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1919 in order to effect changes. I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's concern and we are currently examining the position.

  Public Officials
  Mr. Tim Boswell: What steps he is taking to co-ordinate departmental policies in respect of the conduct of public officials. [54731]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): On behalf of the Minister for the Civil Service, the Cabinet Office is responsible for the civil service code, the civil service management code and the model code for staff of executive non-departmental public bodies. Policies relating to groups of public servants for which other departments have lead responsibility are co-ordinated with the Cabinet Office as necessary.
  Mr. Boswell: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind special advisers that they are, generally, civil servants? In particular, will he advise and encourage them not to brief against one another with the views of their departmental Minister? In his capacity as lord high enforcer, will he bring some order to government in case the term "beef on the bone" develops an entirely new connotation?
  Dr. Cunningham: I can agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman says—I hope that he is pleased with that. As the Opposition know, special advisers are subject to a model contract and to the civil service code. Those provisions will continue.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: May I add my congratulations and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the Minister on his new appointment? On the co-ordination of Government information services, is he aware that a number of people, not just the Home Secretary, find it difficult to accept the view expressed by Lord Neill that Government information services should not be used during the holding of referendums where Government policy is being put to the test of public opinion?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. He will know that in due course the Government will give a considered response to the proposals from Lord Neill and his colleagues. The specific point that he raised is shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

  Policy Co-ordination
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: How many meetings he has had with other Ministers to discuss enforcing greater co-ordination of Government policy. [54732]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): I frequently meet my ministerial colleagues to discuss the co-ordination and presentation of Government policies, and I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend, too, if he so wishes.
  Mr. Skinner: Instead of using up valuable time meeting me or anyone else from the Labour Benches,
  1270
  perhaps my right hon. Friend would meet someone else, who I believe is probably undermining Government co-ordination. I refer, of course, to Eddie George. Does my right hon. Friend agree that he should ascertain from him whether he used the words that unemployment in the north is necessary to keep inflation down in the south? If he did, it is time that he went.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not want to meet me to advise me on how I might be more effective in my enforcer role. I understand that there is some doubt about whether Eddie George used the words at which my hon. Friend has understandably taken offence. As for my meeting Mr. George, I think that I will leave that pleasure to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I wonder whether the Minister knows that the members of the Select Committee on Deregulation have been twiddling their thumbs since May 1997, as it has virtually nothing to do. Is he proposing to wind it up or that we should exercise some better regulation, in which case, when does he propose that we should discuss that on the Floor of the House?
  Dr. Cunningham: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the appointment or disbandment of a Select Committees of the House is, fortunately, not a matter for me. On better regulation, I should be happy to see the hon. Gentleman, and members of the Select Committee, to discuss how we are taking those important issues forward, not only in this country, but in the European Union.

  The Prime Minister was asked—

  Engagements
  Mr. Don Touhig: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 October.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
  Mr. Touhig: May I tell my right hon. Friend that the people who sent me to this House warmly welcome the extra £40 billion promised for health and education? They see it as an investment in their future. Will he make it clear that cutting spending on schools and hospitals is the Tory way? It is not our way.
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. The £40 billion for our schools and hospitals will not just ensure that we can get waiting lists and class sizes down and improve standards in the health service and our schools; it is also an investment in this country's future. The worst thing we could do would be to take the Tory way and cut that spending next year.
  Mr. William Hague: After a summer in which one job has been lost every 10 minutes,

  1271
  manufacturing has been taken to the brink of recession, agriculture has been deep in recession and the Chancellor has had to admit that his central economic forecasts are seriously wrong, will the Prime Minister tell the Chancellor to come to the Dispatch Box and explain how he got us into this mess and how he is going to get us out of it?
  The Prime Minister: I note that the right hon. Gentleman claims that a job is being lost every 10 minutes in the United Kingdom. Since May last year, when the Government were elected, employment has increased by 373,000 in 537 days. That is one new job every two minutes. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Chancellor will make his pre-Budget report within the next two weeks, and he will give that at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Hague: What a statement of extraordinary complacency from a Member of Parliament in whose own constituency 600 jobs were cut a few weeks ago. In July, when we last had Question Time, the Prime Minister told us that his forecasts were absolutely prudent. The Social Security Secretary, at the same time, told a Select Committee that people had said, "No, you are being too prudent; you are being too cautious." By August, the Education and Employment Secretary was saying that the economy was on a knife edge. By early October, the Chancellor was saying that his forecasts were seriously wrong.
  Given that the Government's assumptions have proved so seriously wrong, does the Prime Minister think that the Government have any share of the responsibility for what has happened, or is it all somebody else's fault?
  The Prime Minister: No. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the figures for the north-east. He is quite wrong. Unemployment in the north-east has fallen since the Government came to power, and employment has risen. On any basis, not merely will we meet the fiscal rules that the Chancellor has set out, but borrowing will be less under this Government than in any year under the Conservative Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member.
  Mr. Hague: If the Prime Minister thinks that there is not a serious economic problem, he is not living in the real world. He is not listening to businesses across the country, which have been telling the Government about the situation. All along, the Government's attitude has been to blame the managers, the workers, the investors and the Bank of England. This morning, we even had the Trade and Industry Secretary—who is gaff-prone now that he has to speak for himself—telling the workers at Rover to sharpen up their act. I think that the workers at Rover would tell the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Trade and Industry Secretary, none of whom have ever worked in a business in their lives, that they must sharpen up their act.
  Given that the Prime Minister, who is also the First Lord of the Treasury, will not bring the Chancellor the Dispatch Box, does he agree with the Bank of England's report, which said that some of the reasons for higher
  1272
  inflation and higher interest rates were the Government's spending decisions in July? Does he think that the Bank of England got that right?
  The Prime Minister: I have made it clear that the Government's spending proposals—£40 billion extra on our schools and hospitals and investment in the country's transport infrastructure—are right. I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he would cancel that spending. If the Conservatives' response to the economic situation is that they would cancel that spending on schools and hospitals, they are wrong economically and wrong socially, and they will pay a very heavy price politically.
  Mr. Hague: It is not an adequate response to these questions simply to attack the Opposition. It is not an adequate response for people in the midlands who went to work this morning knowing that they were in danger of losing their jobs for the Prime Minister to tell the parliamentary Labour party this morning that the economic difficulties would be a political opportunity for the Labour party—that is how he regards the situation.
  Has not the Prime Minister put the Bank of England in an impossible position? The Chancellor has his foot on the accelerator while telling the Governor of the Bank of England to put his foot on the brake. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, the Governor of the Bank of England says that the policy amounts to sacrificing jobs in the north to deal with the inflation problems that the Government have exacerbated. Is that the Government's policy? If not, what do they intend to do about the situation?
  The Prime Minister: Borrowing is lower under this Government than it was under the Conservative Government. When we came to office, we cut the budget deficit from the £28 billion we inherited to less than £8 billion. Employment has risen by almost 400,000, and unemployment has fallen.
  As for the car industry, there is a problem at Rover Longbridge. We will work with management, unions and others to try to deal with it. However, it is mainly a problem of productivity, and we must tackle that if we are to make our industry competitive. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a balanced picture of what is happening in the car industry, I can tell him that Rover at Cowley is expanding jobs, Vauxhall has just announced an extra 1,000 new jobs, Jaguar is announcing an extra 1,300 new jobs, and there are more jobs at Honda, more jobs at Toyota and more jobs at Nissan. I can also give him the figures on car production for the past six months, which has risen by 4.5 per cent. Exports for the same period have risen by more than 8 per cent. I agree that there is a problem at Rover Longbridge and that we must tackle it, but it is not helped by the idiotic hysteria that the right hon. Gentleman has just exhibited.
  Mr. Hague: Not for the first time, we have a Labour Prime Minister who says, "What crisis?" He is not remotely in touch with how it feels for businesses, small businesses and farms across the country. Is not the truth that the Prime Minister inherited a golden legacy, and in 18 months he has squandered it? The last Labour Government had a winter of discontent. This Labour Government have had a summer of complacency, and are

  1273
  now facing an autumn of rising unemployment. Is it not the case that jobs are being lost, investment is being cut and factories are being closed on a far greater scale than need have happened were it not for the policies of this Prime Minister and this Chancellor?
  The Prime Minister: No. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the facts relating to the week that has just ended. In actual fact, although it is true that around the country about 5,000 job losses have been announced, 15,000 extra jobs have also been announced. It is important to balance the picture.
  When we came to office, we inherited a national debt that had doubled. We are reducing that national debt. We inherited borrowing that was out of control; we brought it under control. Yes, giving the Bank of England independence was a difficult decision, but it is right in the long term. That is why long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 30 years.
  Interest rates are now coming down from 7.5 per cent. Everyone will remember that they were at 15 per cent. for a year or more under the last Conservative Government. That is the choice—the choice between boom and bust under the Conservatives, and long-term strength and stability with us. I believe that, in the long term, the country will choose the course that is right for it.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Following the Prime Minister's visit to New York last month and the subsequent meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, is it not right to continue to focus on the problems of developing countries during the current global crisis? Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read Friday's report of the United Nations Development Programme, showing that 1.5 billion people in the developing world are earning less than a dollar a day? Will the Prime Minister make dealing with those problems a priority, so that the poorest people in the poorest countries, who have been the major casualties of our global difficulties, can be given the attention that they deserve?
  The Prime Minister: Of course the difficulties involved in the world financial crisis have made a difference to developing as well as developed countries. The International Monetary Fund has now halved its world growth forecast for next year. But I know that my right hon. Friend will recognise the work that has been done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for developing nations, both in terms of debt relief and in terms of constructing a new World bank facility to help them.
  Ultimately, with the right financial and political systems, those nations can grow, and the benefit of their growth, and their escape from the heavy burden of debt, will be felt by the developed world as well as by developing countries themselves. That is why we have always felt, when investing money in aid and development, that, if that investment is properly targeted, it is in the mutual self-interest of both the developing and the developed world.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Beneath all the sound and fury and the Government's flawed economic forecasts, are not these the human facts? Whatever the situation may have been in the past, most observers now
  1274
  believe that some 300,000 manufacturing jobs are in jeopardy, and one of our greatest industries—agriculture—is now experiencing its deepest crisis for 50 years. Will the Prime Minister at least start by acknowledging those facts?
  The Prime Minister: As I did acknowledge in respect of Rover Longbridge, I readily acknowledge this in respect of the farming industry. Certain parts of manufacturing industry have been either very dependent on exports from Asia, or have been troubled by the strength of the pound. Yes, they are in a difficult position; but I believe that the long-term policies that we are pursuing—which ensure low inflation, stable growth and action on education, investment, skills and technology to deal with productivity problems—are our best option. The farming industry has a particular problem. That particular problem—the problem of BSE—we inherited, but I am hopeful that we can bring about relief for the farming industry over the next few months.
  Mr. Ashdown: Instead of indulging in the blame game, the Prime Minister could do three things now. Will the Government consider them? First, the right hon. Gentleman could tackle our exchange rate problem by making a clear commitment to the single currency. Secondly, he could end the policy of seeking to control growth just through higher interest rates. Thirdly, he could ensure that our farmers in Britain enjoy the same financial package and advantages as every other fanner in Europe. Three things: will he do them?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot promise to do that, I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman. First, in relation to the euro, as I have said many times, the worst reason for joining is short-term exchange rate issues. I simply point out to him that the exchange rate is now below the level that we inherited last May.
  As for farming incomes and subsidy, we do put an enormous amount of subsidy into the farming industry, but the problem is that there has been a collapse world wide in beef, lamb and pork prices, and of course it has affected our industries as well. We and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are looking at what can be done to help our industry; but in respect of the rest of Europe, I do not believe that we should emulate its agriculture policies. We should be working to reform the CAP in the interests of all the consumers.
  Dr. David Clark: We in the north are delighted by the net increase in jobs that we have had since the general election, but we did inherit a legacy of the highest unemployment of any region in the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend understand the anger and offence that have been caused in the north-east of England by the statement by the Governor of the Bank of England that the high unemployment in the north-east is a price worth paying for low inflation in the south? That is grossly offensive. Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity this afternoon to make it clear that that is not the policy of our Government?
  The Prime Minister: It certainly is not the policy of the Government. Although Eddie George is perfectly able to look after himself, if we look at his remarks in context, he was not saying that. He was simply saying that we had

  1275
  to set interest rate policy for the whole of an economy, not merely any one region—that we could not, in other words, differentiate interest rates in different parts of the economy.
  Again, my right hon. Friend will know not just that, since this Government came to power, we have reduced unemployment and raised employment, but that the new deal, which is bringing new hope to many of the young and long-term unemployed, is working particularly well in the north-east. The help for some of the most deprived communities in the new scheme that has been announced by the Deputy Prime Minister will also help. It will take us time to repair the damage of the Conservative years, but we are making a start on it.
  Mr. David Maclean: With jobs being destroyed across Britain at the rate of one every 10 minutes because of a recession made worse by bungling in Downing street, and with our British countryside dying because of the Government's neglect, will the Prime Minister stop trying to blame it on other people or pretend it is not happening, and do something about it now?
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry to trouble the right hon. Gentleman with the facts, but the facts are, as I say, that employment has risen since this Government came to power, and unemployment has fallen. In respect of both his region and other regions of the country, more jobs are being created.
  Of course, as we have said, the economic difficulties we face, in part as a result of world conditions, are faced by countries around the world. What is important, however, is that we have the right spending and the right monetary policy. The right hon. Gentleman's party is now committed to reversing Bank of England independence. That would be a terrible mistake for the interests of the country. [Interruption.] The Tories shake their heads. Will they shake their heads at this—that they are opposed to our extra spending next year? [Interruption.] The Conservative party says that it opposes all the spending in general, but it applauds it all in particular. It wants inflation taken out of the system, but without Bank of England independence—although it now says that it will retain it. The great black hole is the space where the Conservative party's brain used to be.
  Mr. Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend will understand my concern at the report circulating about Rover Group and how unsettling that is, not just for my constituents in Longbridge, but for all those thousands of jobs that depend on Rover in the midlands and elsewhere.
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while Rover is facing difficulties at the moment, that has to be set against the launch of a new model at the motor show this week and the millions of pounds worth of investment that has already been put in? Does he further agree that, if the difficulties are faced, Rover plants, including Longbridge, can have a bright future; and that the role of Government and politicians is to help the management and work force to reach the agreements that are necessary to face those challenges? That is surely better than, like the Conservative party, standing in some pretty fragile glasshouses and throwing stones.
  The Prime Minister: Quite correct. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the balance of the situation is that Rover, for
  1276
  example, is expanding at Cowley, and that it has tremendous opportunities at Longbridge as well. I greatly hope that the new R30 model will come to Longbridge. However, the important thing is that management and unions sit down and work out how they can raise productivity, as needed for the long term. The Government's role is to help in any way that we can, but also to recognise honestly that, ultimately, the future lies in the hands of the management and work force together. With the right partnership, I believe that it can be done.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: As the House congratulates my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on being the first British parliamentarians in 39 years to receive the Nobel peace prize, will the Prime Minister accept that real peace will develop only when his written commitments made to the people of Northern Ireland before the referendum are delivered, and that real peace surely includes the decommissioning of terrorist weaponry and cells?
  The Prime Minister: Of course that is right. We want decommissioning to happen as quickly as possible. Under the agreement, decommissioning is due to be completed within the two-year period. I therefore entirely agree that the agreement—the whole of the agreement—has to be properly implemented. I agree also with the hon. Gentleman's comments on his right hon. Friend. The award of the Nobel peace prize to him and to the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party in Northern Ireland is a tremendous vote of confidence in the future of the whole of the Northern Ireland community.
  Mr. Andrew Reed: The Prime Minister talks about tough choices. May I suggest to him—and ask whether he agrees with the House—that the easiest choice that he will have in the next few months will be whether to abolish the hereditary peers down the Corridor? Does he accept that he would receive massive support from Labour Members in making that simple and easy choice?
  The Prime Minister: I notice that the Conservative party is now entirely opposed to any step to abolish hereditary peers—apparently on the grounds that hereditary peers are a representative cross-section of the British people. I have done a little work on that. Of the 750 hereditary peers, only two are black or Asian, only 16 are women, and 45 per cent. went to Eton. I think that that is a representative section of the British community that the House of Lords could do without.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Tim Boswell: If he will pay an official visit to Silverstone in 1999.
  The Prime Minister: I have no plans this year to visit Silverstone, but I very much want to visit it in the future, as I have already told people there.
  Mr. Boswell: While the Prime Minister will always be welcome to come back to Silverstone, such a visit would perhaps not be as welcome as a firm start date for the Silverstone bypass. Will he not use this opportunity to

  1277
  acknowledge the importance of the grand prix and the formula one industry as a centre of engineering excellence that is not only world class but a creator of several thousand jobs in my and adjoining constituencies? Will he specifically undertake not to succumb to pressure to pull the rug from under tobacco advertising and sponsorship unless and until firm arrangements are made to sustain that vital industry?
  The Prime Minister: I think that I am probably in as good a position as anyone to understand the importance of formula one. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that we believe that the industry is very important. Some 50,000 jobs depend on it, and it has a huge spin-off effect in technology and other areas for many different parts of industry.
  The precise reason why we wanted to ensure that the European directive was phased in over time was to give the industry the chance to get other types of sponsorship. As those in the industry themselves have said, their best future lies in freeing themselves from tobacco sponsorship, which will take time. Because of our negotiations, they have that time, and we will help them to use it.

  Engagements
  Helen Jones: Does the Prime Minister accept that one of the hard lessons that we had to learn in opposition was that statements made on a wet night in Dudley, as a former Chancellor put it, can come back to haunt one? If so, will he agree to make available the services of a Government statistician to help the Opposition to understand the implications of the shadow Chancellor promising to cut spending and shadow departmental Ministers promising to increase it—or does he think that they will never reach the required standards of numeracy?
  The Prime Minister: It is certainly correct that the Government will hold firm to our spending plans next year. After this Question Time, it is unclear whether the Opposition are in favour of or against the spending plans, or whether they are going to ballot their members to find out; but whatever twists and turns the Opposition engage in, this spending is right. It is an investment in this country's future, and the worst thing that we could do would be to cancel it at the present time.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the great British millennium dome, the showcase for British culture, will not be sponsored by a great big American fast food corporation, which would probably try to reduce it to a large McDome and fries?
  The Prime Minister: I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means by that, but it is important that we get sponsorship for the dome. That is in line with what hon. Members have continually been saying—the more private sponsorship we can get, the better. I am sure that the dome is going to be a tremendous success, and I look forward to welcoming the hon. Gentleman there.
  Ms Rachel Squire: At one of my constituency surgeries, two brothers and a sister
  1278
  told me that they had recently met for the first time. The two brothers were sent to an orphanage while their parents were still alive and were shipped to Australia when they were nine and 12 years old. They were then separated and sent to institutions where they experienced hardship and abuse. They were among 10,000 children sent on a Government-approved child migrant scheme which continued until the late 1960s. These children were sent without parental approval and were told that their families were dead.
  Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming and paying tribute to the work of the Child Migrants Trust and in welcoming the report by the Select Committee on Health which was published just before the summer recess? Will he ensure that the Government will do all they possibly can to give immediate and full access to the former child migrants and their representatives, so that, before age takes its toll, some may at long last find the families that they lost so long ago?
  The Prime Minister: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this subject and of her campaigning work. I am also very much aware of the heartache that is caused when families are unable to trace their relatives. The Department of Health has made some £200,000 in grants available to the Child Migrants Trust. As my hon. Friend knows, the trust and other bodies work very hard on behalf of former child migrants. The Department of Health will consider very carefully any future applications to the trust, and the Government will consider what else we can do to assist families to trace their relatives.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the Prime Minister appreciate the fact that, despite the wonderful summer that we had in Dorset, the tourist industry is doing very badly? Given that hoteliers face the prospect of ever higher interest rates, a high pound, increased costs of regulation and an economic downturn, does the Prime Minister believe that they should go out of business now—or should they wait for the flood of new customers experiencing the enforced leisure that his downturn at Downing street is going to bring about?
  The Prime Minister: I would simply point out the facts. Interest rates are coming down, in case the hon. Gentleman has not noticed the reduction, and the pound is now below the level that we inherited. As I have often said, I do not believe that the answer to all industry's problems is perpetual devaluation. That game was tried by the Conservatives for 20 years, and it did not yield long-term benefits. The hon. Gentleman should at least applaud the efforts being made by this Government to improve training and skills within the tourist industry—making the industry a high value-added industry is giving it the best future that it can have.
  Mr. Ian Pearson: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), will my right hon. Friend stress personally to BMW the importance that the Government attach to Rover's forward investment programme and the need for the replacements of the 200 and 400 series vehicles to be manufactured in the west midlands? Does he agree that, given the launch of the new Rover R75 and Jaguar S-type, 1,000 new jobs on Merseyside and major investment plans by Nissan, Toyota

  1279
  and Honda, we should be talking up the British motor industry, not talking it down as the Conservatives do? After all, their policies were directly responsible for the loss of 1 million manufacturing jobs and interest rates of 15 per cent. for a year.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. We must balance the problems at Rover Longbridge, which we have to try to tackle, with what is actually a continuing success story in the British car industry. If production has risen by 4 per cent. in the past six months, that is
  1280
  something of which we can be proud. It is expanding, but it can expand in today's highly competitive market only if the investment and the skills are there. The work force is willing, and I know that BMW management want to make that commitment. By management and unions working together—and we will help in any way proper for a Government to help—we will get the investment and the rise in productivity that we need at Rover Longbridge so that the future of the plant can be secured.
  Madam Speaker: Thank you. Time is up.

Rover
3.31 pm
Mr. John Redwood(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the crisis at Rover and on what action the Government propose to take.
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I have been taking and will continue to take a close personal interest in the developments at Rover, and I have travelled twice to the west midlands, for different reasons, already this week. I have been in touch with the company on a number of occasions in recent weeks. I met union officials on Monday evening, and have a further meeting with the chairman of BMW, Berndt Pischetsrieder, and the chairman of Rover, Walter Hasselkus, tomorrow morning.
The company is in the process of a wide-ranging review of Rover's car operations in the United Kingdom. No decisions have yet been made, but clearly they need to establish a commercially viable basis of production. The company has indicated that it needs a £150 million cost reduction every year for the next three years. That is a tall order, and must inevitably include an examination of company employment practices as well as investment in new plant and technology.
Rover's investment plans are designed to deliver the right models to the market which are attractive to customers and affordable for them to buy. On the basis of those plans, the new R75 is under production at Cowley, and there is an assured future for Longbridge with the production of the new R30 model, but, critically, it depends on the right cost structures being put in place at the plant.
Rover has a long way to go to match the best world standards of productivity and competitiveness. BMW has indicated that Rover's overall current productivity levels are only two thirds of those of its German counterparts. The company and its work force need to focus very clearly on the changes required to bring about the raised performance it needs in order to be commercially successful.
The company has already come a very long way in introducing the necessary productivity changes that it needs. The investment by BMW amounting to between £500 million and £600 million per annum has gone a long way to address the previous shortfall of investment in the company, but more needs to be done.
I am told by the company that, one way or another, a solution to its current difficulties has to be found by the end of November. Without question, everyone will have to share in the burden of finding that solution—shareholders, management, work force and suppliers.
My Department and I will continue to work closely with BMW and Rover as their review develops. There is a role for the Government in ensuring that all the parties are brought together and properly focused on the issues. However, ultimately it is for the company to rise to the challenge and ensure that Rover continues to thrive in the global market place.
There has been comment that this is just another instance of the car industry in the UK in decline. That is far from the case. In addition to Rover's new R75,
1282
launched this week, Vauxhall has just started a third shift to produce the new Astra at Ellesmere Port, and Ford has invested £400 million in its new Jaguar S-type car, also launched this week. Other announcements this year include a £500 million investment by Honda to produce a third model at Swindon, creating 1,000 new jobs, and on Monday the Deputy Prime Minister opened a £200 million engine plant expansion by Toyota at Derby.
British automotive production is delivering excellent vehicles at competitive prices to some very tough markets. That continuing success deserves full acknowledgement and encouragement by all hon. Members.
Mr. Redwood: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. It was as patronising as it was complacent. Of course Rover needs to produce affordable models. Why, then, have the Government that he represents done everything in their power in the past 18 months to make it dearer to make cars in Britain, rather than making it cheaper? Why does he dare to deliver a speech like an undertaker denying all knowledge of the reasons for the death, when his Government's policies have been throttling British industry over the past 18 months? When will the Government wake up to the terrible damage that they are doing to manufacturing industry? The Trade Secretary needs to sharpen up his act rather than calling on others to do so.
I hope that the Secretary of State notices that Rover is not alone in finding conditions in the United Kingdom hostile to manufacturing. Day by day, and week by week, we are witnessing a tidal wave of redundancies and closures across our industry. For the past year, the Opposition have consistently warned that Labour's policies would trigger a manufacturing collapse.
Every time that interest rates were put up, more factories were bound to close. Every time that the Government's actions pushed up the value of the pound, more jobs were bound to go. Every measure that they took to make it dearer to employ people meant that more projects were bound to go elsewhere. Every time that they increased business taxes, companies were left with less cash for new plant, products and jobs.
It has taken only 18 months to squander a golden economic legacy—18 months of heavy taxes by stealth; 18 months of high sterling; 18 months of high interest rates; 18 months of many new costs and regulations for anyone who dares to employ someone. On the "Today" programme this morning, we heard the Secretary of State blaming the employees. He washed his hands of all responsibility. He is the Secretary of State for industry, so why does he not behave like it? The unions and the Opposition were offered no right of reply on the programme to the view that it was all the employees' fault, and that Rover was somehow a unique problem.
How can the Rover employees compete when the Government have made it so difficult for business in Britain? Why should they accept criticism of their work from the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), when he insults them with his remarks and fails at his job? Perhaps he should try getting his hands dirty in the right way, for a change. All we get from the Government are idiotic soundbites. We are promised a stable and competitive exchange rate. Which will they try first? We have had neither so far. They tell us that they are building for the long term. When will the

1283
demolition in the short term stop? Will the Secretary of State shoulder some of the responsibility? Does he understand that Ford is going on to a four-day week? Textile, engineering and high-tech companies are closing down or laying off people? Does he know or care that a job is being lost every 10 minutes under this Government? Will he take some action with his colleagues to delay the damage that they are doing to British business? Will they delay some of the costs that they are heaping on British business? Will they control the social security budget and address the black hole in their finances which is worrying the Bank of England and keeping interest rates too high? Will they return to the much lower level of business taxation that the Conservative Government left them—once they have managed to control their massive increase in welfare spending?
Outside the House, they will call the right hon. Member for Hartlepool "Mr. Mandelson, the Minister for Manufacturing Collapse". If he does not do something soon, he will become "the Minister for Manufacturing Slump". He and his colleagues have made it too dear to make things in Britain. They must act now to help save some jobs at Rover, and at all the companies which today are considering the same type of action. This is a recession made in Downing street. The Government must awaken soon before much more is lost.
Mr. Mandelson: Unless I blinked, the right hon. Gentleman did not mention Longbridge once. It is absolutely clear why he tabled the private notice question: he is determined to continue competing in ridiculous hyperbole with the leader of his party. To hear him carrying on in such a way, anyone would think that the Tory party leadership contest was still going on.
In his lectures about manufacturing and manufacturing jobs, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that, under his Government, the number of manufacturing jobs fell from 7 million to 4 million. One million manufacturing jobs alone were lost in the recession that his party created in the early 1990s. He seems to have overlooked the fact that, since this Government came to office, more jobs have been created than have been lost. Indeed, since we were elected, 400,000 new jobs have been created as a result of our policies and the success of British business.
It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is interested only in trying to manufacture a crisis out of a rather complicated company reconstruction, which has been undertaken by Rover with immense difficulty. Everyone agrees that Rover has to undertake the reconstruction in order to make the company and the plant at Longbridge competitive and profitable. Success and reconstruction will come only from increases in productivity, which everyone except the right hon. Gentleman recognises needs to be made.
Dr. Lynne Jones: When I asked the previous Prime Minister a question about the future of Rover, he said that it was not a matter for him. I hope that that will not be this Government's attitude. We all knew—BMW knew when it took over Rover—that a problem of differential productivity needed to be addressed. That has obviously been exacerbated by the strength of the pound, which was not anticipated.
The key to dealing with the issue must be investment, which has been made in other plants but not yet in Longbridge at the necessary level. Will my right hon.
1284
Friend do all he can to secure that investment? Does he agree that, with such investment, Rover at Longbridge faces a bright future? Does he also agree that, in securing the investment, it would be helpful if there were a promise that the pound will be more competitive in the long term?
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support for the action that the Government have already taken. I am sure that she acknowledges that, at the end of the day, the company's future rests in its hands. As I have said, there is much that the Government can do in bringing together all parties to ensure that all the key issues involved are properly addressed. We are certainly doing that.
In all my discussions with management, the work force and trade union representatives at the company, I have been impressed by their sense of realism as well as their shared commitment to resolving the difficulties that the company is experiencing. Such resolution will be achieved only if there is continued commitment and if all members of the work force, the management and the executives of the company act in partnership in order that changes are made.
I am confident that, given the discussions that I have had, those changes will be made, that investment at Longbridge will be secured, and that Rover will be able to sort out its future and continue successful production on the basis of a commercially successful, viable, profitable future.
Mr. David Chidgey: I fully support and welcome the efforts that the management and work force of Rover at Longbridge are making to turn the company around. It is easy to blame poor productivity or poor management alone for the crisis that manufacturing industry, especially the car industry, faces, but we must recognise that those problems have been with us for decades, and it will not be possible to turn them round at a stroke.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government must bear some responsibility for the fact that we are losing 300 jobs a day in manufacturing? One of the reasons for that is the Government's policy for sterling, which has created the highest value of sterling for at least 15 years, and is making life extremely tough, if not impossible, for our manufacturing industry. Does he agree with this week's forecasts that, unless the Government make some commitment—as I think he has already said they should—on entry into the single European currency, we face the loss not only of 300 jobs a day in manufacturing industry, but of at least 300,000 jobs next year?
Mr. Mandelson: I may or may not share the hon. Gentleman's view on economic and monetary union, but I do not think that the Rover company will find its salvation or the solution to its problems in Britain's immediate, early or later entry into the single currency—with, of course, the full-hearted consent of the British people.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not join other Opposition Members in talking down the British economy and talking ourselves into recession, which is enormously damaging to the confidence of those in business, who are struggling all the time, successfully, to increase productivity and maintain Britain's share of world markets.

1285
I stress to the hon. Gentleman the fact that the job news is not all bad. Indeed, there is more good news than bad news on jobs. Recently there have been tremendously important job gains. For example, Oracle is opening a new plant that will create 2,000 new jobs in Solihull; Syntel is creating 2,000 new jobs in Belfast; Microsoft, in a joint venture with Computacenter, is creating 900 jobs in London and the south-east over the next three years; IBM, in a joint venture with Cable and Wireless, is creating 400 jobs nationwide. I could go on and on.
There is an enormous amount of good news—and that news will continue to flow so long as the Government maintain our commitment to economic stability, which gives companies the confidence and the ability to predict and plan for the future. That is what they need, and that is what they will continue to get from the Government's policies.
Jacqui Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important element of the competitiveness of a business is the supply network that it can build up around it? Many businesses in my constituency have played a vital role in supplying Rover, and they and their work forces have been willing to adapt to the demands that have been made. In his meetings with Rover and BMW executives, will my right hon. Friend stress the importance of that west midlands supply network, and remind them that it will not be easy to rebuild it in other parts of this country or Europe?
Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know how well aware Rover and BMW are of the importance of that excellent supply chain, which also stretches beyond the west midlands. I am pleased that so much work is going on in the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. I was in Birmingham this morning addressing its conference, and its members are doing an enormous amount to improve their networks, their business links and their mutual dependency.
Business is learning from business; they are learning how, throughout the supply chain as a whole, they can serve each other. You are right, Madam Speaker, to say that there is an excellent supply base and skill base in the west midlands. I am confident that those will not be dispersed as a result of premature decisions taken by BMW or Rover.
Mr. William Cash: The Secretary of State says that the decision lies with company management. Does he accept that there are serious questions to be asked—in relation not only to Rover, but to a whole range of British industries—concerning decisions taken by the European Commission and/or by the German Government, which are leading to the increased uncompetitiveness of British industry?
Does the Secretary of State accept that there ought to be proper investigations at the proper level in Europe and in the DTI of the real reasons why, over and over again, Britain gets the rough end of the argument? Why, for example, are massive subsidies paid in other countries—such as to Air France and in Germany? Why are cheap loans made at no interest from the lender banks, putting
1286
Britain at a competitive disadvantage? Will he do the right thing and have a quiet and careful examination of the matter in the British interest?
Mr. Mandelson: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's paranoia about Britain always being at the rough end of the European stick. However, he makes a reasonable point—which I acknowledge—that we must be vigilant at all times about any proposal or measure emanating from Brussels that threatens Europe's economic competitiveness. I am vigilant about that—I take it very seriously— indeed. One cannot return from a week in the United States—as I have done—having seen the vibrancy of that economy and the lack of barriers to investment, production, innovation and flexibility in that country without having some concern about Europe's record.
However, in the past 15 months, the Labour Government have done a darn sight more—and a darn sight more successfully—to prise open and liberalise European markets to the advantage of British firms. We will continue to challenge every measure proposed by the European Commission which we believe to be inconsistent with Europe's paramount need to maintain its competitiveness in the world economy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have been able to call only a few hon. Members to put questions. I would ask that questions now be brisk, and if the Secretary of State would oblige me with brief answers, it would be extremely helpful to our debate later today.
Mr. Richard Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the criticisms from the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), do not carry much credibility? The Conservative Government sold off Rover at a knock-down price, laced it with sweeteners which proved to be illegal, and did so behind the backs of the employees of Rover Group.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we want to work towards the fulfilment of plans for renovations at Longbridge—plans which have already received planning approval—and towards a full-model range, starting with the new Mini and building up to a new medium-range model? I welcome what he has said about assisting the discussions between management and unions to achieve those ends. Will he pay tribute to the work that has been done by employees at Longbridge in improving productivity there? They are confident that they can improve productivity still further there and at other plants in the future.
Mr. Mandelson: I can do all those things, Madam Speaker. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been extremely active and conscientious in the past few weeks in making sure that the Government have been properly focused on what we can do to support the efforts of all at Rover, and particularly at Longbridge.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the previous Government sold off Rover without lifting a finger to help to put in place the conditions for Rover's future success. They will for ever be indicted for that. Following my discussions with management and union officials at

1287
Longbridge, I acknowledge the strong determination there to find a solution to all the problems that the company faces. Judging by their success so far in raising productivity, I am confident that that is what they will do.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I have a brief question which, I hope, will receive an accurate answer. How much will the working time directive cost Rover on a year-by-year basis?
Mr. Mandelson: A sound and straightforward technical question of that sort will get a perfectly sound, straightforward, technical answer from me if it is possible for me to provide it when the hon. Gentleman gives me notice of the question.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend mentioned the success in Ellesmere Port that Vauxhall has just announced. He will have noticed from files that he inherited how complex was the process of securing the agreement that took Ellesmere Port and Luton into the long-term future. Does he agree that that was done through a partnership between the work force and management and, indeed, Government both central and local? Are there not lessons that can be learned about the problems facing us at Longbridge?
Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but not merely about Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port. Look at the success story of Jaguar following Ford's investment in that company, its strength now and the tremendous attractiveness of the new model, the S-type, which was launched this week. What were people saying about Jaguar not so long ago? They were writing it off, but people helped and came together—the work force and the Government, and the management contributed, too. If we can do similarly in relation to Rover and help to create as much success in that company as we did following Ford's purchase of Jaguar, we will be doing extremely well.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of my total commitment to manufacturing, whatever Government are in power. Does he accept that manufacturing is in severe difficulty—some believe, in recession? Is he confident that his announcement this afternoon will give the necessary reassurance to Rover management at Longbridge and to the work force, who have done an extremely good job in recent years?
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the Treasury appears to be anti-car and anti-road. So many of the extra taxes imposed by this Government have been imposed on the motorist, and there is now talk of a higher excise duty for the larger capacity car as from next year. Is that the way to encourage a healthy market for the car industry in this country? I do not believe so. Will he have a word with the Treasury?
Mr. Mandelson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have shown as strong a commitment to the future of the car industry today as I acknowledge he has to British manufacturing. I share his concern, and look forward to engaging with him and other Conservative Members who share that commitment to manufacturing. I do not know how many Conservative Members there
1288
will be. It might be a dialogue between the two of us, but, hopefully, as he continues to champion British manufacturing, he may eventually gain some recruits on his own side.
Whatever the hon. Gentleman says about pessimism among some people in manufacturing, he should not talk down British manufacturing. He does not mean to do so, but let us acknowledge that manufacturing output is up, and manufacturing jobs are being created. With the additional investment and productivity boosts that we have seen in other sectors being transferred and translated to the automotive sector, success in that sector, including Rover, will be similar to that in other parts of United Kingdom manufacturing, and it will be a continuing success.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am absolutely focused on the needs of UK manufacturing. Those needs, as well as the needs of the service industries, will be the focus and target of the competitiveness White Paper and the measures that I will propose when I publish it in early December.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If, as was said, levels of productivity at Longbridge were two thirds of those in Germany, that is a stark statistic—it makes exchange rate problems pale into insignificance. Has that statistic been independently produced, and do the trade unions at Longbridge accept it?
Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend makes a good point about Conservative point scoring on the value of sterling. Everyone at Rover, in all parts of the company, acknowledges that the dominant factor is the competitiveness that flows from the cost structure and levels of productivity. The trade union leadership in the company and at the plant, with whom I had a realistic exchange on Monday evening, also accepts that.
There will obviously have to be some difficult discussions with the work force, but there is no question of people rushing to conclusions and driving through quick-fix, superficial changes; we are talking about root-and-branch reorganisation. I remain confident that, given the commitment shown by everyone in the company, we shall see such a jump in productivity and improvement in competitiveness.
Dr. Evan Harris: Rover's announcement will send a shiver down the spines of those people in my constituency and in the constituency of the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who work at the Oxford Rover plant—after the job losses of the 1980s, they are thinking, "Not again."
Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a suspicion that this manufacturing mess was made in Millbank for Murdoch when tax increases were ruled out for this Parliament, which has left a one-club strategy of interest rates? Has not the problem been caused by the fact that the delay and dither of the previous Government has been replaced by "wait and see until News International gives the go ahead on EMU"? The right hon. Gentleman cannot claim credit for the creation of jobs in manufacturing unless he accepts the blame for the loss of jobs.
Mr. Mandelson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not respond to his stream of clichés.

1289
He would do better to congratulate the Cowley plant and Rover, which has successfully launched the R75 model this week. Moreover, Rover's expansion of production at Cowley will result in the creation of 800 new jobs in the new year, which is a cause for celebration.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that global economic conditions and prospects are significantly worse than they were over the 18 years of the previous Government—who none the less caused two recessions—and that the level of sterling, in an uncertain world, is a measure of confidence in the British economy, where the number of jobs is increasing? The key to success must be to refocus on stability and productivity, and I look forward to seeing that re-emphasised in the forthcoming White Paper on competitiveness.
Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend will certainly not be disappointed. Everyone, with the exception of the Opposition, acknowledges that the British economy, which was operating at the peak of the business cycle, had inevitably to slow down—that analysis is shared by all. No one could have predicted the crisis in the world financial system that began in Asia and spread like a contagion to the rest of the world. Our task is to ensure that, against the background of world instability, we keep our eyes firmly focused on long-term stability in the British economy. Our policies are designed to achieve that, and I am confident that they will.
Sir David Madel: To secure substantial improvements in productivity at the Vauxhall plants at Luton and Ellesmere Port, the trade unions agreed to big changes in work practices and patterns. Have the trade unions at Longbridge agreed in principle to make such changes?
Mr. Mandelson: It is too early to describe conclusions or changes that people are signing up to or entering into, but, on the basis of my discussion with the union officials on Monday night, I can say that they are facing the situation with considerable realism. Everyone has to do that if everyone is to share the burden that will be involved in finding a solution to Rover's current difficulties. I think that they acknowledge that costs have to be reduced in the company and I believe that they accept that that will involve considerable restructuring and reorganising in the company's employment arrangements. I think that they will face that with great fortitude and they deserve our support and help in doing so. They will certainly get that from the Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We shall move on now.

Point of Order
4.4 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Having just sat through the two days of the defence debate, you will have been as surprised as I was by the headline in The Times today: "Britain to back defence role for Europe". Nothing that was said by Defence Ministers in this place could possible bear that interpretation, despite the fact that the Government were being pressed on the matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith).
It is now clear that, while the House was debating defence, the Prime Minister was briefing Philip Webster and other journalists from Europe about an important change in defence policy as regards Europe. The only question is whether the Secretary of State for Defence and his team were party to the contempt of Parliament or whether they were victims of the high-handed treatment to which we have become used.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I gave the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to put that question to the Minister for the Cabinet Office during Question Time. If he did not like the answer that he received, that does not give him a reason to put the same question to me now.

Schools and Colleges (Funding Formula)
4.5 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a common funding formula for 16 to 19-year-old students in schools and colleges.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to establish a common funding formula for school sixth forms, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges, so that students pursuing the same or similar courses in different institutions receive broadly the same level of public funding. At present, 60 per cent. of full-time 16 to 19-year-old students now study in the college sector, with only 40 per cent. in school sixth forms.
The need for the Bill lies in the increasing evidence that in recent years a funding gap has opened up between school sixth forms and colleges that could now be of the order of 20 per cent. That is to say that most sixth forms receive up to 20 per cent. more funding per student than their neighbouring colleges. We are used to differential levels of funding between private and state schools, but here there are unacceptable differentials within the state sector.
The Bill does not deal with the related issue of differential funding between colleges and training and enterprise councils, but that may be an issue that other hon. Members wish to pursue. Nor does it deal directly with the anomalies of differential funding between local education authorities or between colleges funded by the Further Education Funding Council.
The nature of the current problem is that there is essentially one curriculum for students aged 16 to 19, but two distinct sectors, two financial systems and two funding regimes. The issue has been widely discussed within the profession during the last five years, particularly since the incorporation of colleges in 1993 and the establishment of the FEFC, although it has been difficult to reach agreement over the exact methodology for calculating comparative costs.
I remind the House of the different funding regimes that apply to school sixth forms and colleges. Schools receive their funding through local education authorities. I am delighted to say that the formerly opted-out schools will be brought back within the remit of local authorities in due course. There is wide variation between LEAs. Funding for 16 to 19-year-olds is distributed according to the LEAs local management of schools scheme, mainly according to pupil numbers: on average, 16-year-olds are worth about 140 per cent. of an 11-year-old funded through the average weighted pupil unit. Up to 20 per cent. of the budget may not be related strictly to numbers, but the numbers of students are determined on a single census day, no account is taken of drop-out, and there is no allowance for achievement.
1292
By contrast, colleges are funded through the Further Education Funding Council. The funds are distributed according to the number enrolled, the number continuing to participate and the results at the end of the course. There is a weighting for the different curriculum areas. The funding reflects the real cost of delivering the courses. High-cost areas such as science achieve more than lower-cost areas such as humanities.
Schools receive funding that is front loaded, depending largely on the number of students enrolled at the start of the course. College funding is determined by the number of students who continue on the course, and on their levels of achievement.
To date, the policy of both the previous and the present Government has been to support convergence in principle. The former Government made that clear in their competitiveness White Paper, and our Government have referred to it recently in the consultation paper on fair funding. Earlier this year, the report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment drew attention to the subject. There has also been considerable research, although there is a dispute over the methodology. It is likely that the latest piece of research from the Department for Education and Employment will be published in the next few weeks showing that the difference in funding levels has increased.
A common funding formula would help to restore some of the savage cuts imposed on colleges in recent years. It would concentrate the minds of local authorities and individual schools with small sixth forms which have not yet grasped the nettle of the damaging implications of post-16 competition. It would release resources which could also be used to increase spending in schools at key stage 3. Most importantly, by encouraging greater collaboration to secure economies of scale, it could widen curriculum choice for young people to enable them to pursue the course that best suits their interests, abilities and career aspirations.
I do not claim that the proposals in the Bill for a common funding formula for schools and colleges will achieve all those objectives overnight—nor do I believe that a common funding formula alone can address the crisis of funding or the chaotic legacy of the internal market that continues to damage post-16 education. For the nettle to be truly grasped, we need to establish new planning powers at regional level. However, the Bill would be an important means of getting the ball rolling in the right direction, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Chaytor.

SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES (FUNDING FORMULA)
Mr. David Chaytor accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for a common funding formula for 16 to 19-year-old students in schools and colleges: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed [Bill 247].

HUMAN RIGHTS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Human Rights Bill [Lords]:—

1. The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting.

2. The proceedings on consideration mentioned in the first column shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time mentioned in the second column:

New Clauses up to and including New Clause 2

1½hours after commencement

New Clause 3

2½hours after commencement

Amendments up to the end of line 24 on page 1

3 hours after commencement

Amendments up to the end of line 29 on page 7

4½ hours after commencement

Remaining amendments

6 hours after commencement

3. The proceedings on Third Reading shall, if not concluded, be brought to a conclusion 7 hours after commencement.

4. In paragraphs 2 and 3 "commencement" means commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this resolution.

5. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading for any part of the period of 7 hours mentioned in paragraph 3 which falls after 10 o'clock.

6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.

7. For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order—

(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; and

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Orders of the Day
  Human Rights Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Committee), considered.
  Human Rights Bill [Lords]

  NO REMEDIAL ORDER BEFORE DETERMINATION OF EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
  '.—Where

  (a) a Court, as defined in section 4(5), has made a declaration of incompatibility in respect of any legislation and where there is no further domestic right of appeal; but

  (b) it nonetheless appears to a Minister of the Crown that it is desirable in the public interest that the question of compatibility, and all and any issues arising in the proceedings which have given rise thereto should not be the subject of any remedial order unless and until such issues shall have been fully considered by the European Commission of Human Rights or, if admissible, should have been the subject of a judgement, decision, declaration or opinion of the European Court of Human Rights;

  he may issue a certificate to the said effect in writing, and in such event the said declaration shall be of no effect pending consideration of the said issues by the Commission and the Court.'.—[Sir Nicholas Lyell.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.12 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  With this Bill we now turn from the damage being done to the economy by the Government to the damage which, alas, is being done to our constitution. I do not think that that is the intention of the Home Secretary, but he is party to it.
  We have two main debates on this aspect. First, there is the debate on new clause 2 which relates to the need for an appeal to Strasbourg for the Government and for local authorities in certain circumstances. Secondly, there is our continued resistance to the Government's proposal for a fast-track system for remedial orders—in other words, for a system whereby, if there is a declaration of incompatibility by our courts, instead of the matter coming before Parliament for a proper Bill and Act of Parliament in the normal way, with full consideration by the House, the matter can simply be pushed through with a three-hour debate after a period of outside consultation. Both those matters are important if our constitution is not to be damaged.
  The purpose of the new clause, to which we return because of the rather uncomprehending and unsatisfactory response by the Government in Committee, is to make clear what is unclear at present—that is, that the object of the Bill and incorporation of the convention is to bring our law into line with that of Strasbourg and make it easier for UK citizens to get a ruling from our domestic courts on issues that would hitherto have been taken to Strasbourg.
  I hope that the Home Secretary agrees that the object is not to create a substitute constitution in the broad language of the convention, against which our domestic courts might be tempted to reshape our law in a way that goes further than the requirements of the convention. The

  1295
  convention was not designed to become a substitute written constitution for the United Kingdom. It was designed to keep UK law in line with the human rights law of Council of Europe member states, as declared in Strasbourg.
  The new clause seeks to help in that process and the Government have nothing to fear from it. I therefore call on the Home Secretary to make it clear that what I have outlined is the Government's objective, and no more.
  Hopefully, the problems to which I refer will not arise, but they are not fanciful. The answer may be that those problems do not arise frequently on the continent of Europe, but there are significant differences between the structure of our law and that of civil law countries, such as France, Germany or Spain. Indeed, almost all countries on the mainland of Europe are civil law countries, and their laws are much more heavily codified than ours. They have much more "black letter" law. It is not open to their judiciaries to develop their law as our judiciary has developed ours through the common law over the centuries.
  In most ways, our system is a strength. The development of the common law has been rightly informed by a belief in the rights and liberties contained in the convention. We are rightly reminded that the convention was largely drafted in Britain in the late 1940s and early 1950s. However, any common law development has—subject to the European convention—always been subject to modification by the elected representatives of the people in Parliament. That gives democratic legitimacy to our constitution.
  In future, that is to change somewhat, but I hope that the House agrees that it must not change too far. It is one thing to keep our law in conformity with Strasbourg concepts, which are, on the whole, cautious and seek to enforce basic standards; but the commission and the court in Strasbourg have also recognised that there must be a "substantial margin of appreciation". That is Strasbourg jargon, which means a substantial discretion and latitude should be given to each member state in respect of the exact method of implementation of the high principles set out in the convention. That margin of appreciation must also apply to domestic judgments based on the convention.
  I hope that the Home Secretary agrees that the convention is not to give the judiciary carte blanche to rewrite our laws. Although one hopes that our courts will not over-use their powers—I think that most of them will not—the Government are right to anticipate that they will frequently be requested to do so. They will often come under a great deal of pressure and hear a lot of carefully prepared arguments in that direction.
  If hon. Members need convincing of that danger, they need only read the speech given by the Attorney-General to the Bar Council at the beginning of this month. He explained, and I agree with him, how every level of the Government needs to undergo training as to the reach and relevance of human rights law. Repeated and extensive arguments are to be anticipated by those who, on behalf of defendants and others, appear before the courts. He said that the Crown Prosecution Service is to be trained and furnished with model answers to the more obvious submissions that are to be anticipated. Magistrates and judiciary are likewise to receive training, but what will happen if there is a ruling by our domestic courts against
  1296
  the Government—of whatever complexion, for we are legislating for as far as the eye can see and beyond—or a public authority which is believed to have gone too far?
  Here, with respect to the Home Secretary, his answer on 24 June—I am sorry that I could not be present, but, as he knows, I was in hospital—is not, in our view, adequate. We need to create a more formal structure so that the individual citizens involved in particular cases and the country at large know where they stand. Are the Government accepting a particular ruling, and do they propose to legislate promptly?
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I simply want to ask him whether he has a reference for the occasion on which I made this point.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall look to help from the Bench behind, as the Home Secretary is better able to do. I should not say that he is better able to do that, because I have my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) with me.
  Mr. Straw: The junior.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: No, my hon. and learned Friend is not my junior at all now; he is one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law, no less.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Learned or not, may I interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend? The Home Secretary's speech, in response to mine, began at column 1127 of Hansard, or thereabouts.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Some of the Home Secretary's answers on that occasion seemed to be rather dismissive, or even—this is not like him—a little trite. I am sure that he did not intend them to be so, but the Opposition are well aware that there is no "right" of appeal for Governments or public authorities to Strasbourg. It is precisely because we are aware of that that it was necessary to draft new clause 2, the purpose of which we have already put before hon. Members in Committee, in this careful way.
  My impression from the Government's answer is that they recognise that there will be occasions when it is necessary to force a case to continue on to Strasbourg. I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would either make it clear that he does not agree with that point or acknowledge that there are likely to be cases when the Government or public authorities would not think that our House of Lords, or whichever of the highest courts had ruled on the matter, had given a ruling in accordance with what was likely to be Strasbourg law, and would want the matter to continue to Strasbourg.
  It is not good enough, in our opinion, for the Government in answer to say that the mechanism to force a case on to Strasbourg already sufficiently exists. It may exist in theory, if I understand the Home Secretary's answer correctly. It is true, as was argued by the Government on that occasion, that, if the Government of the day, having received a declaration of incompatibility, do precisely nothing, citizens will, sooner or later, be

  1297
  forced to take the matter on to Strasbourg or will find themselves deprived of their remedy—but what an unsatisfactory way in which to proceed.
  How long is the citizen—the litigant—to wait? What is the country to assume in the meantime? What is the status today of the hallowed and rightly time-honoured convention that Government will never knowingly break the law? It cannot be satisfactory to leave such matters in limbo.
  Having been Attorney-General, I ask myself and the House, in the hope of an answer from the Government, what an Attorney-General would say if there had been a ruling of incompatibility by the House of Lords on a particular aspect, but the Government had taken no steps to correct it. Would the Attorney-General remain silent while the Government considered what to do?
  Would that ruling—which, under clause 4(6), would not have any legal effect at that stage—have no effect on the courts? If, the House of Lords having delivered its judgment, a new case came before the courts, could the matter be argued de novo, or would the ruling stand as authority? If the Government have thought about these matters, we should be grateful to hear their conclusions. If they have not thought about them, we should be grateful if they would do so and would tell us their conclusions at some future date, although it would be preferable to hear them now. It cannot be satisfactory to leave such matters in limbo.
  The individual citizen and the country at large are entitled to be told within a reasonable time—we suggest six weeks—whether the Government intend to change the law and, again within a reasonable time, how they propose to do so. If they do not intend to change the law, the citizen and the country should be told. The citizen could then take his case to Strasbourg. There would be a proper mechanism, certainty and comparative expedition. However, what the Government seem to propose is a recipe for confusion, delay and injustice.
  Although I said that such problems would, I hope, be rare, I also said that they were not fanciful. One only has to look across the Atlantic to see what powers the courts have taken for themselves under their own constitutions. Periods of judicial passivity can be followed by periods of judicial activism. The classic example—I hope that it is not thought too high flown—is the American constitution, which showed itself inadequate, despite its fine phrases, to protect its citizens from slavery, but has more recently been construed so as to overturn the views of the legislature on the subject of abortion.
  Likewise in Canada, the courts have struck down the federal law and state laws on abortion. We hope that that would not happen here, but fashions change. The language of the convention is certainly broad enough to provide pegs on which the courts could hang an argument to intervene. If they were to do so, on that example most people would probably think that the judges had seriously overstepped the mark. They would want a particular case to be brought to Strasbourg to challenge and to test such a serious extension of judicial power. We would certainly wish to have it tested at Strasbourg, yet at present, no satisfactory mechanism exists to enable that to be done.
  Even at this late stage of the Bill, we call on the Government to think again on this matter and, I hope, to accept our amendment. I am not saying that it is perfectly
  1298
  drafted, but it is carefully drafted, and if it needs polishing, let it be polished. If that involves a little ping-pong between this House and the other place, let that take place. Above all, let us get this right.
  Our new clause establishes a straightforward and workable system under which everyone knows where they stand. If a case needs to go on to Strasbourg, the litigant can take the necessary steps without uncertainty or delay. If not, he can await with confidence some appropriate amendment of the law by the House. Above all, it will make it clear to our courts and judiciary that the House does not intend to set up the convention as a substitute constitution. I commend the new clause to the House.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Garnier: Let me begin by correcting something that I said earlier. I believe that the Home Secretary's response to my few remarks in Committee began not in column 1127, but in column 1119. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has spent many a happy hour since last June reading Hansard in order to hone his arguments in time for today's debate.
  I commend what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) has said, not least because, to a degree, it mirrors what I said in Committee last June. I say that not because I consider myself to be a man of great original thinking, but because all people of good will and common sense who have given the matter some thought will have reached the same conclusions as my right hon. and learned Friend and me. Indeed, much of what I said on 24 June flowed from discussions that I had on the telephone with my right hon. and learned Friend when he was on his sickbed.
  Be that as it may, I hope that, over the recess and in the hours available to him when he has not been dealing with other matters, the Home Secretary has had an opportunity to reconsider his response to what I said in Committee on 24 June. Although he was, as always, very courteous in dealing with my arguments, I am not sure that he did himself or the Committee justice in responding to what I had said on behalf of the official Opposition.
  Let me take the Home Secretary back to 24 June, and column 1121 of Hansard. He said—just before an intervention by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan)—
  "Therefore, although I understand the point of new clause 2, it would not achieve anything. Nothing in it could not equally be achieved—and will not equally be achieved—within the framework of the Bill as it stands."
  I regret to say—because I do not like being unduly controversial—that the Home Secretary missed not only the point, but the points. I fear that, unless it is amended to include new clause 2, the Bill will remain deficient, and will remain a source of aggravation and difficulty between the House, as the originator of legislation, and institutions and citizens who may, from time to time, come up against either the Government or Government institutions in complaining about the implications of the European convention on human rights under the Bill.
  The points that I sought to make in my short contribution on 24 June were, I hope, reasonably clear. My first point was that we were left with an imbalance between Government and citizen. It seems to me that in any litigation, there should be fairness, if not parity,

  1299
  between the two parties to the action. In my view, each party—be it citizen or Government—should have the right of appeal to the highest court of appeal in the given system of justice. Under the convention and the Bill, the citizen has the right to take his concerns from the lowest courts—the courts of first instance—through our domestic appeal tribunals, to the court in Strasbourg. The Government do not have that right.
  Responding to my point—this is also in column 1121—the Home Secretary said:
  "New clause 2 seems to be based on two assumptions. The first is that a declaration of incompatibility will have some legal effect unless a ministerial certificate is issued. The second is that the Government must make a remedial order following a declaration of incompatibility."
  However, he went on to say that there may be occasions when the Government might not do those things, which leaves the legal situation in a state of uncertainty.
  Although there are advantages politically in leaving things in a state of uncertainty, as the Government demonstrate day by day, there are higher demands on a justice system than there are on party political interest. Where a Government, albeit ably assisted by men of integrity such as the Home Secretary, allow themselves to be led into a position where the citizen is unfairly advantaged compared with the opposite party in the litigation—the public institution, alias the Government—in the ability to appeal to the highest court, there is a glaring uncertainty, which our new clause would adequately deal with.
  As I say, I do not like chiding the Home Secretary. I hope that he will see the reasonableness of the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and myself—on this and the previous occasion—and that they will convince him of the good sense of new clause 2.
  It troubles me that the Home Secretary said on the previous occasion:
  "Nor is there any obligation on the Government to remedy any incompatibility by means of a remedial order."—[Official Report, 24 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 1121.]
  If there is incompatibility, it should be remedied; otherwise there is no point in introducing into domestic law the terms of the European convention. I urge the Home Secretary either to come up with some new and better arguments, or to accede to our new clause.
  Mr. Straw: I am delighted to see the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) in his place and, I hope, fully recovered from his ills. He began his speech with some uncharacteristic hyperbole: with claims that we were damaging our constitution. I shall simply take that incantation as a necessary step that all Opposition Front Benchers have to go through. Then, because he was obviously uncomfortable with what I think is widely recognised in the House as wide of the mark, in relation to this Bill anyway, he went on to make his case in his usual reasoned way, joined by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
  I do not dismiss the arguments of the Opposition, but nor do I agree with them, and I should like to explain why. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire asks me first, and it is an important point,
  1300
  to confirm that we do not view this Bill as a substitute for a written constitution for the United Kingdom. The answer is that we do not.
  It is precisely because we have been determined that it should not be a substitute written constitution for the UK that we have structured the Bill in the manner that we have and, in particular, ensured that no court in this land, not even the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, can place itself in the position of sovereignty over the High Court of the elected Parliament.
  We looked at various ways in which the European convention could be incorporated. We looked at the experience of not only continental countries—I accept what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire says about the differences that arise because of the fundamental distinction between our common law tradition and their civil law traditions—but Commonwealth countries. They have not incorporated the European convention on human rights because they are not within the continent, but New Zealand and Canada, for example, have incorporated Bills of Rights, often drawn on the European convention, into their domestic law. Some of those countries have chosen to structure their incorporation legislation so that their bill of rights emerges as basic law.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire spoke about "black letter" law, and I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough for providing further and better particulars of the definition of such law. In countries that have written constitutions, there is not only statute law passed by the congress or Parliament but fundamental or—to use the continental term—basic law, which is the constitution itself. The constitution overrides, and is promulgated differently from, ordinary law.
  If we had stated in the Bill that courts could not only declare incompatible any statute of this Parliament but override those statutes and declare them unenforceable, thereby abrogating them, we would have been establishing—either by the front or back door—a substitute written constitution for the United Kingdom. We would have been altering what I regard as a fundamental position established in our constitution: the sovereignty of Parliament. I think that one of the profound strengths of our system is that, although we may bind ourselves to the European Union, to United Nations treaties or to the European convention, we do not bind ourselves for ever, and that it remains open to this Parliament, at any stage that it chooses, to decide to withdraw from those conventions. Although we would, of course, have to accept the consequences of withdrawing, the decision would be made by this elected Chamber and the other place and by no one else.
  The Government thought—there was no great argument about the matter, but it was important that we should deal with all the arguments—that it was important to enshrine Parliament's sovereignty in the Bill. We therefore developed the scheme of declarations of incompatibility. We did not propose that the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords should have the power to override Acts of Parliament by stating that, because they were incompatible with the convention, they were unenforceable and of no effect.
  We said that the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords would be able to declare whether, in its opinion, an Act of Parliament was incompatible with the convention,

  1301
  and subsequently to refer the matter back to the Government, which is answerable to Parliament. In the overwhelming majority of cases, regardless of which party was in government, I think that Ministers would examine the matter and say, "A declaration of incompatibility has been made, and we shall have to accept it. We shall therefore have to remedy the defect in the law spotted by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords." Therefore—as has been discussed in previous debates, and will be discussed again today—we have included in the Bill procedures for remedial orders. It is also always open to Ministers to introduce amending legislation in the normal way.
  It is possible that the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords could make a declaration that, subsequently, Ministers propose, and Parliament accepts, should not be accepted. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire mentioned abortion, which provides a good example. Although I hope that it does not happen, it is possible to conceive that, some time in the future, a particularly composed Judicial Committee of the House of Lords reaches the view that provision for abortion in either the United Kingdom or part of the United Kingdom is incompatible with one or another article of the convention. Although the Committee would be entitled to say that such provision was incompatible with the convention, such a view would create very great controversy and, in some quarters, considerable social anxiety.
  We judged that, in that event, it would be wrong simply to accept what the Committee had said, and that a right to abortion, albeit quite properly limited and developed in this country over a period of 30 years, should suddenly be cast aside. My guess—it can be no more than that—is that whichever party was in power would have to say that it was sorry, that it did not and would not accept that, and that it was going to continue with the existing abortion legislation.
  I want to pick up two further points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Garnier: Is the Home Secretary entirely satisfied with the argument that he is deploying? He cannot have it both ways. Either the Government are introducing into British domestic law the convention on human rights—or the bits that they have identified—and are setting up mechanisms whereby the courts can make declarations of compatibility or incompatibility, or they are not. If the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, in its court capacity, says that certain legislation—on, say, abortion—is incompatible with the convention, and if the Government, speaking through their Ministers in the House of Commons, say, "You may say that, but we don't care and we don't intend to do anything about it," there is a lacuna in the constitution, which is unsatisfactory. The highest court in the land will be saying one thing, while Parliament, through its elected Members, will be saying another. That will lead to friction. With respect to the Home Secretary, it is no good his saying that he will
  1302
  leave it like that and will rely on clause 4(6). That leaves a vacuum that needs to be filled, and it will be filled by public dissension.
  Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. Yes, indeed we would rely, as would any Ministers, on clause 4(6). That is its purpose. It does not leave a lacuna, because it states:
  "A declaration under this section (`a declaration of incompatibility')—

  (a) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; and

  (b) is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made."

  That means that, as long as the Government, with the House's approval, say that they do not accept the declaration of incompatibility, the
  "validity, continuing operation or enforcement"
  of, in this case, the abortion legislation, would continue. I shall develop that point later.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I have been listening extremely carefully to the Home Secretary. I am grateful that we agree on the key point that the Bill is not to become a substitute constitution. I hesitated before getting to my feet, because I felt that the Home Secretary might be going to deal with this point, but what worries me—this formed the second part of my speech—is how the citizen will know where he or she stands. There is no structure in the Bill to force a Minister, or to enable a public authority through a Minister—we have suggested the latter—to say that, if there is no agreement and if someone wants to pursue a case, the case must go to Strasbourg, and new clause 2 would remedy that.
  I do not want my intervention to be too long, but I want to make one more point. Let us consider a case that must be exercising the Home Secretary, just as it exercised me. It is that of Phyllis Bowman and the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child and the effect of that case on our election law—that 24,000 or so leaflets could be put through the doors of the constituents of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). That seems to have driven a coach and horses through our election law.
  Had that been the ruling of the House of Lords—although I do not think that it would have been—I am sure that it would be a good example of the kind of case that we would wish to push to Strasbourg to try to get it overturned as being a step too far. How would citizens know where they stood? How would Phyllis Bowman know where she stood? That is why we need an answer.
  Mr. Straw: The Phyllis Bowman case has caused difficulties that we intend to address in future legislation, because the decision was taken by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and not by our domestic courts.
  For the sake of argument, let us assume that an equivalent judgment had been made in the form of a declaration of incompatibility by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. It has been suggested that the Government would hide away and refuse to explain their position. Within five minutes of such a judgment being made, the Government would be asked for their position. If I happened to be the relevant Minister, I should say that we would study the judgment and no doubt consult the Law Officers, but within a matter of weeks we would

  1303
  have to explain our position, and quite rightly, too. If we did not volunteer our position—that would be an abdication of good government—we would be brought to the House to explain ourselves.
  In those circumstances, there would be a number of options. First, we could accept the declaration of incompatibility and bring forward remedial orders, and that is a straightforward process. Secondly, we could make a compromise and say that we half accepted it—a solution that normally appeals to Ministers and their legal advisers—and cobble something together. [Interruption.] I speak in general terms.
  Thirdly, we could say that we were very sorry, but we disagreed with it. Assuming that we gained the support of the House in that, we could say that we did not accept it for very good reasons and that the current law was right. Then the party to the proceedings—in this case, Mrs. Bowman—would say either, "This is no good. I am going to take the case to Strasbourg," or, "I have fought the good fight and I will put up with what has happened." In the first case, she would exercise her right of appeal and go to Strasbourg. Meanwhile, we would continue to apply the existing law unless and until there was an adverse judgment in Strasbourg.
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there has to be some certainty about the law. The alternative is that Mrs. Bowman, as the initiator of the proceedings, would decide not to proceed to Strasbourg, in which case, notwithstanding the declaration of incompatibility, the existing electoral law would continue to be valid and would continue in its operation and enforcement.
  Precisely because of that, and with respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I genuinely do not see that there is any need whatsoever for Government to be given a right of appeal to Strasbourg. Why should the House have a right of appeal to Strasbourg when simply doing nothing but saying that we did not accept a declaration of incompatibility would put it in the position it wanted? What is the point?
  Let me make this point particularly to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough: it would have been necessary to give the Government and public authorities a right of appeal in respect of an adverse declaration of incompatibility in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords had the Bill provided that decisions and judgments of the Judicial Committee overrode decisions by the House. If we had made the House subordinate to a supreme court, of course we would need a right of appeal to Strasbourg, as we would then have been providing a written constitution, and, essentially, vesting the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights with the function of a supreme court and removing the sovereignty of Parliament. We have not gone down that route.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The cavalry is waiting to come to the Home Secretary's rescue. I have listened carefully to him and it is clear to me that either I have failed to get my point across or he does not understand the structure of his Bill. The purpose of the new clause is not to give the Government and public authorities a right of appeal, because it is not within the power of the House to do so. I am sure that the Home Secretary understands that. Only by changing the convention could the Government be given a right of appeal to Strasbourg. The convention gives the right to citizens only. That is the reason for the somewhat convoluted structure of the new clause, which those who have read it carefully will have noticed.
  1304
  The new clause would do exactly what the Home Secretary says he will do. I was fascinated to listen to the Home Secretary telling the House that the Government will follow the structure that we have recommended in the new clause. If the Government agree with that, they should put it on the statute book. Otherwise, the citizen will not know where he stands. Will the Home Secretary please answer that point?
  Mr. Straw: The proposition before the House on 24 June was that there should be a right of appeal exercised by the Government.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I drafted the new clause before 24 June. Its purpose is the same today, and it means what it says.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. David Lock rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Lock: I have listened to the debate with enormous interest, and it seems somewhat bizarre. Are not our opponents are making two criticisms of the Bill: first that it takes sovereignty from the House; and secondly that it politicises the judiciary? They are now proposing a new clause that will result in judges telling the House what it has to do, and will kick-start a political process—both of which consequences they vehemently oppose. I do not understand the logic or consistency of their position. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that analysis?
  Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am glad about what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire has said, because we have narrowed the ground considerably. He accepts what I say about the nature of the process and asks us to accept the new clause. However, we do not believe that it is necessary. All the processes that I have described are bound to happen anyway.
  The hon. and learned Member for Harborough said that some great lacuna might develop—not a minor procedural hole, but a substantive black hole on the enforcement of the law. I do not think that I am misinterpreting him when I say that he was talking about a limbo developing in which no one knew where they were. People will know where they are. There is no question about that, because the situation will be clear. The speed of the Government response will depend on the complexity of what is handed down from the other place and on other matters, but the Government will respond.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: This leaves me breathless after 11 years in government. The idea that the Government come leaping forward with clear answers to difficult questions immediately does not correspond with the experience of any parliamentarian who has been in the House for any time. That is clearly not the Home Secretary's experience. The judgment on Bowman and the SPUC has stood for many months and we have not heard a whisper on how it should be dealt with. The Chahal judgment has stood for more than a year and we have not

  1305
  heard a whisper on that. The Home Secretary is saying that a report to the House as suggested in the new clause will happen in practice. That defies experience.
  5 pm
  Mr. Straw: I do not accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. He mentioned the Chahal case; it makes our point, not his. We have acted on the issuing of the judgment. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act has provided a remedy to the mischief identified by the European Court in the Chahal case. That is a very good example. Since the original Chahal decision was made under the Government of whom he was a member, it is fair to point out that, quite quickly after the Chahal judgment, the previous Administration said what they needed to do, and got on with it.
  The other point to be made about the Chahal judgment was that it was made by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and not by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. Had it been a judgment of the Judicial Committee and had the Bill been in force, it would have been open to the Government to say, "We do not accept this, and we shall simply run the procedures of the Immigration Act 1971 as we always have." They would have been very unwise to do that in that circumstance, because it would have been obvious that, since the matter was one of the liberty of a subject, there would be an appeal to Strasbourg, which almost certainly the Government would have lost. The Government may have decided—such considerations must be borne in mind—that it was worth taking such a risk for other reasons of state.
  The new clause, which would tie us down, anticipates that, wherever there is a question of an incompatibility and it has not been the subject of a remedial order, there is likely to be an appeal to the European Court. I have already explained that there may not be such an appeal. Despite all the arguments about some hole developing in law enforcement, the default setting is the status quo.
  My very last point is on the issue of both sides having a right of appeal—something that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough mentioned. He implied that the new clause was somehow a paver for both sides having a right of appeal. To dispose of that, I hope that I have satisfied the House that a circumstance in which both sides have the right of appeal would be incompatible with the sovereignty of Parliament and could arise only if, say, we had gone down the track of accepting that the European convention was a substitute for a written constitution and that Parliament would be subordinate to European courts. We do not intend to go down such a track.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I apologise to the Home Secretary for intervening again, but this is the last time that I can draw out from him the key point. As—I think—he accepts, it is not possible for any member state to create a right of appeal for Governments or public authorities without the agreement of all other member states. However, if we want issues to be taken to Strasbourg, we must have a structure whereby the Government or public authorities can legitimately refuse to abide by a declaration of their own courts, thus forcing the citizen to go to Strasbourg. The Home Secretary rightly pointed out that clause 4(6) provides a good deal of what is required in that direction.
  1306
  Where the Home Secretary's argument does not, in my opinion, meet the requirements both of effective justice and proper legislation, is when he says that the Government will always come forward promptly with a declaration about what they will do, despite the fact that there will be nothing on the statute book to say that they should do so. We are relying entirely on the alertness of the Government to achieve what is suggested by new clause 2.
  We do not seem to disagree in principle about the need to achieve what the new clause suggests. Taking my last opportunity to ask the Home Secretary to reconsider, I submit that it would be wiser for him to accept new clause 2 and take it on to the statute book. There would then be a framework enabling all citizens involved in litigation—and, what is more, the far greater number of citizens interested in the outcome of such litigation—to know where they stood.
  At the moment, that is not clear; the position is dependent on the efficiency and good will of the Government. I do not doubt their good will, but with difficult issues, especially those involving public authorities, and perhaps equally those involving the Government themselves, the likelihood is that there would be periods of delay and uncertainty, and people would not know where they stood. The statement that a ruling of the Judicial Committee was to have no effect would cause great confusion.
  I ask the Home Secretary—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is extending the right of intervention much too far.
  Mr. Straw: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that this will be my last point.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman would have a point if we were simply relying on the efficiency and good will of the Government, but we are not. We are relying on the black letter of clause 4(6). The default setting, which everybody knows about, is that a declaration of incompatibility by the Judicial Committee or the House of Lords
  "(a) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; and
  (b) is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made."
  There is certainty there.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me what would happen with the lower courts, and whether they would follow the judgment. No, they would not, because clause 4(6) is clear: a declaration does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provisions in respect of which it is given. There is absolute clarity there. In a judicial and political sense, the status quo ante would apply. Then, obviously, the Government would have to consider, and in most cases they would consider the position pretty rapidly. No time limit is set down, but the reverse could not apply. We could not, for example, say that the declaration of incompatibility would have force unless or until the Government said the reverse. That would create considerable uncertainty, and that would be one of the effects of new clause 2.

  1307
  I understand the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends have made, and the debate has been illuminating, at least in making it clear that there is understanding on both sides of the House that giving the Government a substantive right of appeal to the European Court in Strasbourg would be outwith the structure of the convention.
  I think that there is also understanding that that would be unnecessary for the Government, given the structure of the Bill. The issue comes down to one of procedure when there is a declaration of incompatibility. I am not making a nit-picking point about the phraseology or drafting of the new clause, because of course, if we accepted the principle behind it, those could be dealt with by the draftsmen.
  However, the overall effect would be different from what I believe is the clearer idea contained in clause 4(6). That is why I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw his new clause. If he does not, we shall have to resist it.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am sorry for making a long intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is a very important point. I shall not withdraw the new clause, for this fairly straightforward reason. This will be a real, practical problem. The Attorney-General, speaking to the Bar conference this year, made the point that there will need to be a great deal of training in the matter. We shall see a lot of human rights cases—
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe indicated assent.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is nodding to me, recognises that.
  There will be a great many attempts to make human rights points, particularly in the criminal sector—for example, in relation to manners of arrest. From time to time, there will be rulings that are adverse to our existing law and that we may or may not wish to accept. The Government will have to think about those matters, and decide whether they will amend the law in this House or whether they want the matter to go to Strasbourg on the basis that our courts have gone too far and that Strasbourg will give a wider margin of appreciation or discretion to us, as a member state, to make our own law. Unless there is a proper structure—whereby the Government come forward within a reasonable time to state what is happening—the courts will be in real difficulty.
  I do not think that the Home Secretary understands the point, and I ask him to focus on it for a second. It is no good for the House to point to clause 4(6) and say that, because the clause states that a declaration of incompatibility shall have no effect on the law of this land, the rulings of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords will not be followed in the lower courts in the meantime. It would be a recipe for absurdity for the lower courts—during a lacuna in which we say nothing—to pay no attention to a House of Lords ruling on a point of criminal procedure in this context until we amended the law. It would be far better for the Government to be clear, and for them to have a statutory requirement to come forward promptly to say either what they are doing or that the matter must go to Strasbourg.
  1308
  In the interests of clarity and good legislation, I am afraid that I must ask the House to divide on this issue.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 372.

  Division No. 363]

  [5.11 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Amess, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Lansley, Andrew

  Arbuthnot, Rt. Hon James

  Leigh, Edward

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Baldry, Tony

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Lidington, David

  Bercow, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Loughton, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Luff, Peter (Mid-Worcs)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Brady, Graham

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Brazier, Julian

  Mackay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Madel, Sir David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burns, Simon

  Maples, John

  Butterfill, John

  Mates, Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chope, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clappison, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington & Chelsea)

  Norman, Archie

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Paige, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Paice, James

  Collins, Tim

  Paterson, Owen

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Pickles, Eric

  Cran, James (Beverly)

  Prior, David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Randall, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Robathan, Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewkesbury)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Evans, Nigel

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham & Mid-Kent)

  Flight, Howard

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Ruffley, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  St. Aubyn, Nick

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gill, Christoper

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spring, Richard

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Green, Damian

  Steen, Anthony

  Greenway, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Syms, Robert

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Townend, John

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Tredinnick, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Trend, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Walter, Robert

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wardle, Charles

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Whittingdale, John

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Ann

  1309

  Wilkinson, John

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Willetts, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Nigel Waterson.

  Woodward, Shaun

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge and Chryston)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Allan, Richard

  Clelland, David

  Allen, Graham

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale and Darwen)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Coleman, Iain

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cooper, Yvette

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Corbett, Robin

  Austin, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Baker, Norman

  Cotter, Brian

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cousins, Jim

  Banks, Tony (West Ham)

  Cranston, Ross

  Barnes, Harry

  Crausby, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cummings, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Curtis-Thomas, Claire

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Darvill, Keith

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Berry, Roger

  Davidson, Ian

  Best, Harold

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Borrow, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, Keith (Manchester Withington)

  Denham, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham)

  Brand, Dr. Peter

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Breed, Colin

  Eagle, Anqela (Wallasey)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Maria (Liverpool Garston)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Efford, Clive

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Burden, Richard

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Etherington, Bill

  Burnett, John

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fisher, Mark

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (Cambridge)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE fife)

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Michael J. (Worcester)

  Caton, Martin

  Fyfe, Maria (Glasgow Maryhill)

  Chaytor, David

  Galloway, George

  Chidgey, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Clapham, Michael

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr. David (S Shields)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Godman, Dr. Norman A.

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Godsiff, Roger

  1310

  Goggins, Paul

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Gorrie, Donald

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lepper, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Leslie, Christopher

  Grogan, John

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gunnell, John

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Linton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Lock, David (Wyre F)

  Hanson, David

  Love, Andrew

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McAllion, John

  Harris, Dr. Evan

  McCabe, Steve

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Healey, John

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Heath, David (Somerton)

  McDonnell, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McIsaac, Shona

  Heppell, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  McNulty, Tony

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  MacShane, Denis

  Home Robertson, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  McWilliam, John

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford and Urmston)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury and Atcham)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Martlew, Eric

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Maxton, John

  Hutton, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Merron, Gillian

  Illsley, Eric

  Michael, Alun

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead and Highgate)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll)

  Jackson, Helen (Sheffield Hillsborough)

  Miller, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Moore, Michael

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and U Nithsdale)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Morgan, Julie (Cardiff N)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverhampton SW)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Dr. Lynne (Birmingham Selly Oak)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Keetch, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kemp, Fraser

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye and Inverness W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Pendry, Tom (Staybridge)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kidney, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green and Bow)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  1311

  Pound, Stephen

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr. Gavin

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stringer, Graham

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stunell, Andrew

  Purchase, Ken

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Swinney, John

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rammell, Bill

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Reid, Dr. John (Hamilton N. and Bellshill)

  Thomas, Gareth R. (Harrow W)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rendel, David

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Rogers, Allan

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Rooker, Jeff

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Rooney, Terry

  Trickett, Jon

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Truswell, Paul

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Turner, Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Turner, Dr. George (NW Norfolk)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Salter, Martin

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wallace, James

  Sawford, Phil

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Watts, David

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Singh, Marsha

  White, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe and Lunesdale)

  Williams, Alan W. (E Carmarthen and Dinefwr)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenaw Gwent)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Sir Robert W. (Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

  Wise, Audrey

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Soley, Clive

  Woolas, Phil

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Worthington, Tony

  Spellar, John

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Wright, Dr. Tony (Cannock)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Clive Betts.

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

  CONSULTATION AND GUIDANCE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ACT
  'The Secretary of State shall, before making an order under section 22(3) of this Act—

  (a) provide guidance to public authorities on the steps which they need to take to comply with section 6 of this Act,

  (b) consult public authorities, and such other bodies and persons as he may consider appropriate, on the most effective long term arrangement for providing public authorities, and persons who may wish to exercise their rights under section 7 of this Act, with advice and assistance on their respective responsibilities and rights under this Act,

  1312

  (c) include within that consultation the options for establishing a Human Rights Commission to fulfil those functions, and

  (d) inform Parliament of the outcome of that consultation:—[Dr. Tony Wright.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Dr. Tony Wright: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I move the new clause because I hope that the House will think it important and worth while. Also, it enables Members who are not lawyers to join in the debate, which is always refreshing during proceedings on this Bill.
  As we reach the closing stages of this important Bill, the question is whether any gaps remain to be filled—gaps that might prevent the Bill from delivering its potential. We believe that there are such gaps, and seek, tentatively, to fill them by means of the new clause. It argues that, for the Bill to be effective, it will need some underpinning which is not in place and will not be unless the Government put it there. This is the moment when they should do so. They have put such support in place for every previous similar human rights measure—for example, with the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality—that has extended and strengthened human rights.
  In each of those cases, albeit 20 years ago, it was believed that some institutional structure should be put in place to ensure that the rights being enshrined in a Bill would be operational in practice. It was necessary to ensure that people could access the rights and that something would happen after the House had passed the measure. That legislation was given the necessary institutional support, and it is crucial for a similar approach to be taken with this measure.
  It is crucial, too, that prevention issues be dealt with; for example, how we can prevent cases from even arising by developing good practice in public bodies and private bodies charged with public functions. How can we promote access to justice? How can we advise and assist the people who might benefit from the provisions of the Bill? How can we promote awareness of human rights and develop a real human rights culture in this country? How can we scrutinise draft legislation to ensure that it is consistent with the convention and with other human rights obligations to which this country has signed up? How can we advise Government and Parliament? The latter will need an independent source of advice, and this is our opportunity to ensure that it is put in place. For a range of reasons, it is essential at this late stage in the passage of the Bill that we insert a provision to ensure that all that can happen.
  The new clause would provide the support that the Bill requires. As hon. Members may see, it asks the Government to take three steps prior to the Act's coming into force. The first step will be to provide guidance to public authorities on the steps that they need to take to ensure that they comply with the Act.
  Everyone who has looked at the Bill knows that it has momentous implications for all public authorities and all private bodies that exercise public functions. The Government accepted that both in this House and in the other place. Indeed, in the other place there was talk of a transformation that would need to occur in the behaviour of public bodies.

  1313
  It is not difficult to assemble a long list of the issues that public bodies may have to face as a consequence of the Bill. The current issue of Local Government Chronicle carries the dramatic headline "Human rights Act unleashes legal deluge", and contains a long list of the Bill's legal implications for local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke about exaggerated rhetoric and perhaps the article is over the top, but it is not difficult to assemble a wholly convincing list of matters about which public bodies may be required to respond.
  5.30 pm
  The Institute for Public Policy Research drew up such a list after a series of conferences between practitioners in different fields. It shows—I shall only dip into it—under which articles of the convention public bodies may have to respond. The cases that could arise for health authorities, for example, include, under article 2:
  "inadequate steps taken to protect/save a life—shortage of resources may be no defence—eg Health Authority's refusal to fund expensive treatment for a child because it would only prolong his life a few months—or for an elderly person … failure to prevent death or injury by providing a senior/experienced enough doctor to carry out an operation … that turning off a life support system for someone in a vegetative state denied his/her right to life … that a foetus's right to life should override a woman's refusal to have a caesarean section".
  Cases that may arise for local authorities include, under article 2:
  "failure to protect the public from known and avoidable dangers—eg a local authority which failed to exercise its enforcement powers against a known polluter".
  Cases that may arise under article 8 include a
  "public landlord's failure to repair or maintain a home—or all of the homes within an estate … local authority's failure to issue an abatement and enforcement notice against a creator of a statutory nuisance—bad neighbour factory in a residential area".
  An article 3 case may arise because of
  "any treatment in residential homes/institutions of the elderly, mentally ill, homeless, young people, asylum seekers, remand prisoners (for example) which could be considered degrading".
  The list identifies cases that Government Departments may have to face, such as, under article 8,
  "refusal to allow children conceived by artificial reproduction to know the identity of their birth parents … deportation of a parent which effectively denies a child the right to family life".
  An article 3 case that could arise would be
  "degrading treatment by a public official".
  The list mentions education authorities and schools. Under protocol 1, a case could arise concerning
  "whether a school's decision to expel a child was proportionate to his/her behaviour".
  A case of
  "whether the suspension of a pupil for writing a critical article about the school in a local paper denied his/her right to education and his/her right to freedom of expression"
  could arise under protocol 1 and article 10.
  One can, without any difficulty, compile an extraordinarily long list of cases that will land on the desks of public authorities. Those of us who have supported the measure and who have long wanted to bring
  1314
  rights home must not allow the House to be misled about the scale and impact on public bodies of the proposals. We must ask from whom public authorities will obtain the guidance that they will need to know whether they are complying with the Bill. Where is the agency that will provide the public bodies with the help that they will need?
  When the race and equal opportunities legislation was enacted, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission were established precisely to provide such guidance for the bodies that would be covered and for the individuals who believed that their rights had been infringed. The commissions were the support mechanisms that underpinned the legislation. As a human rights commission has not been established to fulfil such a function in respect of this Bill, the implications for public authorities are far greater.
  Senior lawyers who have been providing training on the implications of the Bill over the past weeks—mostly under the auspices of Justice—have drawn attention to cases of medical negligence, personal injury, environmental health and nuisance, family law, privacy and mental health. They have based their judgments on the cases that have been taken successfully to the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights.
  Not only will public bodies need advice prior to the Bill's enactment on the steps that they will have to take to avoid unnecessary litigation; they will also have a continuing need for advice as the case law develops—for example, on how, under article 3, the courts are defining degrading treatment or, under article 8, people's homes and correspondence and the scope of the right to respect private and family life.
  Private bodies will urgently need guidance on the definition of public function so that they know whether they are covered by the legislation. Large public authorities and companies may rightly be expected to pay for legal advice, but it is unreasonable to expect voluntary organisations—such as Barnyards, which will be centrally involved in the operation of the measure, or bodies that provide residential care for education—to do so.
  The new clause was designed to focus attention on prevention—how we can prevent cases being brought by ensuring that public authorities are behaving as they should. We cannot assume that the Bill's enactment will in itself lead to the culture of awareness to which we all look forward. In the absence of a human rights commission or a similar mechanism, the Government will need to be active in approaching the wide range of organisations to which the Bill applies so that the legislation leads to the desired change in culture rather than to a series of avoidable and expensive cases in the courts. Some training has begun, but there will have to be much more. A concerted and coherent programme is needed, and that must come from an agency that is provided for in the Bill.
  The new clause would also require the Government to consult interested parties on the most effective long-term arrangements through which to provide guidance to public authorities and advice and assistance to individuals who believe that their rights have been infringed. In the White Paper and in subsequent debates, the Government have said that they are not convinced that a human rights commission is essential to the successful implementation

  1315
  of the Bill and that they want a greater consensus on the functions and structure of such a body before they legislate. However, it is clear from that that some arrangement is needed to provide continuing assistance to public bodies and individuals.
  Paragraph (b) of the new clause would ensure that the Government take the lead in finding out what the most effective arrangements would be. The Government have, in a sense, conceded that there will need to be such arrangements, and the clause asks them to consult on that and to make those arrangements an integral part of the Bill.
  Since the Bill was last debated in the House, the Northern Ireland Bill has been introduced, with its provision for a human rights commission in Northern Ireland. That body will have a responsibility to advise and assist individuals taking cases under the Human Rights Act. That assistance will be available whether a case raises issues related to Northern Ireland's particular problems, or issues which could equally have arisen in Britain, such as infringements of privacy or of the right to education. Such assistance will not be available to people living in Britain, with the exception of disabled people, who will be able to seek assistance from the proposed disability rights commission. Whether it is fair that people in Northern Ireland should have access to such support when people in Britain do not is surely a matter on which, at the very least, the Government should consult.
  The Northern Ireland Office does not expect the human rights commission in Belfast to provide guidance to public bodies on their new responsibilities under the Human Rights Act, on the grounds that the provision of such guidance for public bodies throughout the UK will be the responsibility of the Home Office. That therefore leaves a gap.
  Finally, there is the third step which the clause asks the Government to take in order to inform Parliament of the outcome of the consultation exercise that they have been invited to put in hand. On a number of occasions, the Government have suggested that Parliament should establish a human rights committee, and have proposed that the committee's first inquiry could be into the question of a human rights commission. We do not know when such a committee is to be established. The House has not considered it, and such a committee is clearly not in place.
  It would be appropriate for that committee, if and when it is in place, to be informed of the outcome of the Government's consultation on the kind of arrangements that they think are appropriate and necessary for the Bill, so that it can then consider the issue and in turn make its own recommendation. If the Government fail to take the lead in conducting such a consultation exercise, there will inevitably be a long delay before the human rights committee could give the Government its view—a delay at the very moment when public bodies are in most need of the kind of support that the Act will mean they require.
  During that time, the Government would have to be the principal source of guidance to public bodies, and individuals in Britain will have no statutory body to which they can turn for advice and assistance in taking cases under the Act.
  Furthermore, it is my firm belief, based upon some little experience of the ombudsman model in Britain—it works well because a committee of the House, of the kind which
  1316
  has been proposed with the human rights committee, is linked to an external agency—that such a model is needed here if the measure is to be effective. It is because the ombudsman's office and the committee here work in partnership that the model is so effective. One is not a substitute for the other: they should properly be seen as complementary.
  I have no desire to invite the Government to invent another quango. I am a fully paid-up member of the quango hunters club, and I have a track record to prove it. A body is only invented when there is a task to be done. I am persuaded—it is a view shared by almost every organisation that has been consulted on the matter—that for the Bill to be effective it will require some underpinning machinery, and that is what the clause affords. If the answer is to be, which it has, albeit obliquely, been, that all machinery is expensive, there is a moment when we have to decide whether we believe in something. If we do and we want it to be effective, it must be sustained and not be trumped by the Treasury saying, "It will cost tuppence ha'penny so we must not have it."
  When Back Benchers are being difficult, they always say that they are being helpful, but I intend to be helpful here. New clause 3 is entirely in the spirit of everything that the Government have previously said about the measure. They have talked about the need for further machinery to support the Bill, they have said that they are not persuaded about a particular model—the human rights commission—but that they want to explore the matter further and want the relevant bodies to come to a view. The need for that is still there. The clause translates that acknowledgement of need into some mechanism for doing something about it.
  The Bill, hugely important though it is, is only the beginning of a process which will strengthen and extend human rights in Britain. It needs some supporting machinery so that its potential can be fulfilled; the clause enables the Government to ensure that that happens.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: I am sure that the House will agree that we have just listened to a thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). He has clearly given much thought to the consequences of the incorporation of the European convention and the way in which the Government have chosen to achieve that. The House will have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who takes a great interest in these matters. In many ways, he proceeds from the worthiest of motives. He seeks to uphold the human rights culture, as he puts it, and to give the Government advice on the best way to implement the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman gave a long and considered list of possible ways in which the human rights convention could give rise to legal action and, while all are in favour of upholding human rights, it is to be hoped that that will not be at the expense of a descent into sheer litigiousness, which did seem possible from what the hon. Gentleman was saying. We do not want to see the European convention cropping up in every nook and cranny of our relationships with others, but after listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech that seemed a possible outcome.
  The hon. Gentleman proceeds from the worthiest of motives. He seeks to improve and underpin the Bill but, in doing so, he has exposed for all to see one of the glaring

  1317
  weaknesses in the Bill's structural foundation. There is much to be said for what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to require the Secretary of State to do—to consult about the Bill's implementation and to give long-term advice and assistance to public authorities—but what he proposes has one glaring problem which we have come up against time and again in our consideration of the Bill.
  New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to consult public authorities and to give them advice and assistance, but at this point no one can say who or what a public authority is. There is no list in the Bill. The Under-Secretary smiles. He is aware of the problems that this has caused, and he knows the point. It is there for all to see in the Bill. A public authority is a court or tribunal and any person some of whose functions are functions of a public nature.
  As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, that will include a wide range of organisations, persons and bodies who at this moment may not necessarily feel that they are public authorities. But any of those organisations, which may be private organisations for many purposes, when they carry out a function of a public nature may become a public authority, subject to the provisions of the European convention and therefore at risk of litigation for alleged breach of the convention. That will catch a wide range of organisations. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase gave some examples, and even mentioned charities such as Barnardos. A wide range of people could be brought within the ambit of the Bill.
  It is difficult at this stage to say what a public authority is. That is the problem that the Government have come up against in the past. We can go back to a much earlier stage of the Bill and look at the view of an esteemed lawyer, someone who is much wiser than I am in these matters: none other than the Lord Chancellor. In another place he gave the considered opinion, when asked, that the Press Complaints Commission was not a public authority. He then received even more learned and distinguished legal advice—it came from one of my constituents who happens to be a lawyer, so I have to call it learned. That person told the Lord Chancellor that it was possible for the Press Complaints Commission to be a public authority. The Lord Chancellor then had to go back and say that he was wrong.
  I am a great admirer of the Lord Chancellor. We are fortunate in having a Lord Chancellor who is so wise that it is good when he is right and even better when he is wrong. He said that it was marvellous for the Press Complaints Commission to be a public authority, because, as such, it would have all the protections available to it under the European convention.
  That is an example of the problems that can arise. It is not only an esteemed legal authority such as the Lord Chancellor who has had some difficulty in saying what a public authority is. In another place, Lord Donaldson highlighted this as one of the problems of the Bill. He gave a long list of examples, rather like that given by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, as to what may or may not constitute a public authority. He referred to a public authority as anything that is an emanation of the state, any arm of local government or central Government, and courts and tribunals—they are in the Bill. But his list went on. He said that he believed that it could include the BBC, ITV and the press. He asked:
  1318
  "is Safeways conducting a business of a public nature?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1293.]
  He came to the conclusion that it probably was not, but he could not say why. A wide range of organisations and persons will be brought within the definition of a public authority.
  We cannot support the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, because we cannot ask the Secretary of State to consult public authorities when it is difficult, if not impossible, to say what a public authority is. The words of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase contain a clear warning that many people should heed. There are many organisations and bodies which may think that they are perfectly private in what they do, but which may brought within the ambit of the Bill as a result of the way the Government have chosen to incorporate the European convention in our law. In the future, they may face all the problems and difficulties that come with litigation.
  The hon. Member for Cannock Chase is right to the extent that people need to be aware of the problem that will emerge as a result of the Government's whole approach to this matter.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) was right to draw attention to the wide consequences of the Bill and its broad impact on many aspects of public administration. He was right to draw attention to the need for advice to be made available. Before the election, the Government recognised that quite clearly, and put their hand to an agreement with the Liberal Democrats indicating that they would favour the establishment of a human rights commissioner or commission or a similar public body to discharge that responsibility. It is a matter of some disappointment that the Home Secretary has not felt able to continue the undertakings he gave before entering his high office.
  The intellectual basis of the Home Secretary's objection to introducing a human rights commissioner or commission at this stage appears to rest upon the difficulty of reaching agreement about the form it might take, particularly as there are already a number of bodies in existence, to which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase referred in passing, in the context of race relations and equal opportunities, whose roles have not been defined.
  Since the introduction of the Northern Ireland legislation and the provisions for setting up a commission in Northern Ireland to deal with exactly the functions in respect of Great Britain with which a human rights commission would be dealing, the basis for objection has disappeared. It seems to be boiling down to nothing more than a penny-pinching unwillingness to foot the bill of establishing a human rights commission. That may prove to be not only penny-pinching but pound foolish, since it is quite possible to envisage—the hon. Member for Cannock Chase did envisage this—that many people might embark upon litigation who might otherwise not do so. That could result in substantial public expenditure in answering cases that might, advisedly, not have been brought.
  I have predicted that there will not be a landslide of litigation arising out of this Bill. I do not believe that there is so much action by public authorities or legislation on the statute book that runs foul of the human rights

  1319
  convention that we could anticipate the need for such a lot of litigation. However, people will try their hand, and they are more likely to do so if they are not given the sort of advice that would be available from bodies cognate to the European Commission of Human Rights and the Equal Opportunities Commission in the wider field of human rights.
  It is clear that the House should view with sympathy the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase. I fear that he will not persuade the Government of the basic case for establishing a human rights commission at this stage, so his new clause does not seek to go down that route. It seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to act in substitution for the role of a human rights commissioner.
  I suggest that that might have some dangers for the legislation. I agree that the provision of advice and the provision of guidance to public authorities is necessary, but I do not think that that advice should be a prescription of law prior to the enactment of the legislation. There is some doubt at this stage as to the Government's intentions with respect to giving effect to the legislation. What is to be the operative date? When will the order be made under clause 22(3)? Will it be long delayed? I profoundly hope not.
  The Government have put in train some work and have found some money to carry out a programme of judicial education on the consequences of the Bill becoming law. However, there can be no public policy merit in a long delay in giving effect to the will of Parliament that, as the Government's White Paper says, rights should be brought home.
  I fear that, if we were to accept new clause 3, it could mean the Government embarking upon extensive consultations with public authorities before giving the date for implementation. If one is to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, that process would be extensive, with many bodies involved. It could lead to a great deal of uncertainty if the Government cannot provide legal advice about the effect of their legislation in this or any other area, in an authoritative and binding way. Governments are reluctant to do that, for example in taxation. We would not normally argue that a tax bill should not be implemented until its provisions have been fully understood by those to whom it may apply. The same must be said about this legislation: we cannot wait for the Government to provide advice before giving effect to the Bill.
  Although I have considerable sympathy with the arguments outlined by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, and share his broad view about the necessity, if we are to avoid confusion and unnecessary public expenditure, of establishing a public body to fulfil the functions that he described, I cannot bring myself to suggest that the House would be wise to vote for new clause 3. He has, however, performed a valuable service in highlighting the potential problems and the need for the Government to address them. None the less, the manner in which he suggests they should be addressed is inappropriate.
  I reaffirm my view and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends that the Government should commit themselves to the modest expenditure of establishing a human rights commission at an early date.
  6 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I think that this is the first intervention that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has made in the parliamentary proceedings on this Bill. I welcome his speech, which he delivered with his customary eloquence, and, most importantly, his "non-lawyerly" eloquence. We must all pay heed to his theme of consultation and guidance if we are to ensure that the Bill is a success.
  Clause 22(3) provides for most of the Bill's provisions to be brought into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint. New clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to carry out certain actions before making such an order. One is to provide guidance to public authorities on what they need to do to avoid breaching people's convention rights under the Bill. In general, our laws and procedures comply with the convention. When in the past they have been found by the European Court of Human Rights not to do so, successive Administrations have had a good record of taking action to bring them into line. However, the Bill will render alleged breaches of the convention rights liable to challenge much more easily and quickly in our domestic courts.
  We agree that Government Departments and other public authorities should review their legislation and procedures for compatibility with the convention, and consider what amendments are feasible. We are considering ways of providing guidance to help that process along. We shall issue a guidance booklet on the Bill, and provide an overview of the Bill and the convention rights. It will provide advice to help Government Departments and other public authorities comply with their obligations under the Bill. Drafting is at an early stage, but we hope to issue the guidance early in the new year.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will say a little more about our implementation plans when he moves Third Reading shortly. Those will include the establishment of a task force of non-governmental organisations and Government representatives, which will help the Government to prepare for implementation. It is unnecessary to insert in the Bill a provision that expressly requires the Government to provide guidance. No one doubts that guidance is needed before the legislation can begin to operate.
  We have reservations about another of my hon. Friend's proposals—to consult on the most effective long-term arrangements, including the options for establishing a human rights commission, to provide advice and assistance to public authorities and those whose convention rights might be breached by their actions.
  We do not object to consultation on the human rights convention. Indeed, we would want to encourage discussion on the issue, because there is a lack of consensus, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said. That is evidenced in recent documents, such as the book published only last week by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which presents markedly different proposals from those that will operate in Northern Ireland. Thus there is a wide debate yet to be had.

  1321
  The important point is that the Secretary of State would be prevented from enacting the Bill until he had consulted on the options for a human rights commission. As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, that could be a prolonged process, particularly if a parliamentary committee on human rights wished to consider the matter. We could not guarantee when it would publish the results of its consideration. It might wish to take evidence, or want the matter to be the subject of a much wider public debate. Implementation of the legislation would therefore have to hang on the completion of that.
  As we made clear in the White Paper "Rights Brought Home", which we published last year, our priority is our manifesto commitment to give effect to the convention rights in our domestic law. Establishing a human rights commission in Great Britain is not central to that objective, which is why it does not form part of the Bill.
  Before taking the matter further, we want to see how the Bill operates in practice, and to give the proposed parliamentary committee on human rights an opportunity to examine the detailed issues surrounding the establishment of a commission in Great Britain. We do not have a closed mind on the issue of a human rights commission; on the contrary, we want to encourage a healthy debate on it. However, tying the Bill's implementation to some form of statutory consultation would not be helpful, but would merely tie the Secretary of State's hands.
  We already know that there is far from being a consensus on this matter. The Equal Opportunities Commission has its own views on its future and how it might tie into a human rights commission. The Commission for Racial Equality has somewhat ambivalent views and has shifted one way and another on the matter. It now seems to suggest that it is in favour, but it is a somewhat lukewarm view. The IPPR' s proposals envisage a federal structure involving the CRE and the EOC being part of a human rights commission while operating independently on equal opportunities issues. The way in which any structure would work is still vague, and we do not know whether it would bring benefits. Much more discussion is needed.
  The passing of the Bill will do much that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase seeks. He seeks access to human rights; the Bill will provide that access for ordinary individuals in our courts. He seeks to develop a human rights culture; the Bill will provide the basis for developing that culture in our country.
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) rehearsed some of the arguments on definitions of public authorities. If he will forgive me, I shall not pursue him down that route, because the House has already discussed the issue at length. However, I wish to touch on a couple of points made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. He said—I have some sympathy with his view—that he did not share the fears of the hon. Member for Hertsmere or the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase that there will be a landslide of litigation. There will be a settling-in period in which the courts will have to resolve a number of issues, but I, too, do not anticipate a massive landslide
  1322
  which will overwhelm the courts, or anything like that. The fears on that account are, as we shall see in due course, likely to be unfounded.
  We must start to develop a discussion on these issues. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase that, somehow, the Bill will fail or be less of a success without a human rights commission. There has been criticism that the Bill will fail to achieve the Government's objectives unless it has what my hon. Friend described as the "underpinning" of a human rights commission. We do not accept that. The purpose of the Bill is to give access to convention rights in our courts, rather than people having to incur the cost and delay of going to Strasbourg.
  Remedies will be nearer home, and I believe that people will seek them. They will not lack advice. There is tremendous interest in the Bill among non-governmental organisations, the legal profession and academics. I have not the slightest doubt that learned books on how the Bill will affect everyone will be published shortly after it is passed. The result will be the beginning of the strong development of a human rights culture in this country.
  A commission is not essential to ensure compliance with convention rights by the Government or public authorities, or to ensure that Parliament can properly carry out its functions of scrutinising legislation. The Bill provides for Ministers to make statements about the compatibility of Government Bills with convention rights, which we believe will enhance the scrutiny of such Bills within the Government. We have also said that we would support the creation of a parliamentary human rights committee with a range of functions relating to human rights.
  There are a number of sources of advice, and the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase about lack of advice will not come to pass. The Bill will deliver what the Government intend. The issue of the human rights commission can be resolved later; there needs to be greater consensus before we move on that. I hope that my hon. Friend will not seek to tie the hands of the Government by pressing the new clause. In view of what I have said, I ask him to withdraw it.
  Dr. Tony Wright: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. He said at the outset that this is my first intervention during the passage of the Bill. Indeed it is. Until this point, I had believed, perhaps mistakenly, that I was constrained, as parliamentary private secretary to a Minister closely associated with the Bill, from taking part. If that is not the case, it is good news. As is well known, parliamentary private secretaries are the castrati of political life. I am enjoying having my vital organs returned to me, which explains the nature of my remarks.
  Mr. O'Brien: If my hon. Friend had been constrained, or thought that he had been constrained, in any way, the House would have missed his contribution, which I very much welcome. We are all the better for it.
  Dr. Wright: That is enough mutual flattery, but I agree with my hon. Friend about one thing: lots of learned books will be published. There is no question that the Bill is good news for academics and terribly good news for lawyers—there will be lots of trade. The point of the new clause is to show that citizens are involved, too, and that

  1323
  public bodies will be affected by the Bill. We need to provide assistance for them, and they need to get part of the action, too.
  I am slightly puzzled by what the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said, because there was an agreement between my party and his that we were committed to a human rights commission. Whatever else the new clause does, it keeps the door open on the idea of such a commission, which his remarks would close. I am puzzled, not for the first time, by what Liberal Democrats say. Although I am one of those who are always in favour of co-operative politics, I sometimes find theory easier than practice.
  6.15 pm
  What my hon. Friend the Minister said about setting up a task force is interesting. We know that we like task forces—we have a great proclivity for them, and they are useful institutions—but they are not the same as the mechanism that I propose, and should not be confused with it, because they do not provide those support mechanisms.
  My new clause does not propose the establishment of a human rights commission. It simply states that there should be consultation about the most appropriate arrangements with which to underpin the Bill, one of which might be a commission. It could not be a more helpful and open-ended new clause, and I am disappointed that the Government cannot support it.
  This is one of those occasions on which the House—if it did what it wanted to do or did what it would do if it knew what it was doing—would probably bless a new clause of this kind. Indeed, early-day motions have expressed wide support for it, and we have all kinds of evidence that the outside community, which knows about these things, is in favour, but the House will not support it, even though it would like to, because that is how we operate.
  I shall endeavour to keep myself cheerful by hanging on to the words about doors not being closed. I hope that they are true, and that the Government will return to the matter, which is extremely important. Those of us who wish the Bill well and have campaigned for it for a long time think that a commission should be an essential support for it.
  I know that this will bring good cheer all round: in trying to cheer myself up, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

  INTERPRETATION OF CONVENTION RIGHTS
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'under this Act'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 6 to 22, 24 to 30, 36 and 37.
  Mr. O'Brien: This is an array of minor and technical amendments concerned mainly with the operation of the
  1324
  devolution legislation. In particular, the Bill and the Northern Ireland Bill need to be made consistent with each other, and hon. Members may remember that we undertook a similar exercise in Committee in respect of Scotland and Wales. I am happy to answer questions on the detail of the amendments, but I anticipate that the substance of the debate will relate to the Opposition's remedial orders proposals. Unless hon. Members want me to go through the detail, it may be convenient to move on. No one is suggesting that I should go through all the amendments, so I propose to move on to some of the points that may be raised by the Opposition.
  Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 would add to clause 10—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not dealing with that group of amendments. We are dealing with a group of Government amendments. The Minister cannot speak to amendments which have not yet been moved.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I commend Government amendment No. 5 to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 6, in page 2, line 17, at end insert—
  '(aa) by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State, in relation to any proceedings outside Scotland;'.
  No. 7, in page 2, line 19, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
  '(b) by a Northern Ireland department, in relation to proceedings before a tribunal in Northern Ireland—

  (i)which deals with transferred matters; and

  (ii)for which no rules made under paragraph (aa) are in force.'.— [Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 5

  RIGHT OF CROWN TO INTERVENE
  Amendment made: No. 8, in page 3, line 21, at end insert—
  '() a Northern Ireland Minister,
  () a Northern Ireland department,'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 7

  PROCEEDINGS
  Amendments made: No. 9, in page 5, line 2, at end insert—
  '(aa) in relation to proceedings before a court or tribunal outside Scotland, rules made by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section or rules of court,'.
  No. 10, in page 5, line 4, leave out
  'the purposes of this section'
  and insert 'those purposes'.
  No. 11, in page 5, line 5, leave out from 'before' to end of line 7 and insert
  'a tribunal in Northern Ireland—

  (i)which deals with transferred matters; and

  (ii) for which no rules made under paragraph (aa) are in force,

  rules made by a Northern Ireland department for those purposes,'.
  No. 12, in page 5, line 20, at end insert—
  '() "The Minister" includes the Northern Ireland department concerned.'.[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 10

  POWER TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION
  Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 6, line 34, leave out Clause 10.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 40, in page 7, line 17, at end insert—
  '(3A) For the purposes of this section, "compelling reasons" shall be taken to exist where, and only where, a failure to proceed under this section would be likely to jeopardise national security, public health, or the liberty of an individual.'.
  No. 41, in page 7, line 17, at end insert—
  '(3B)Where the Secretary of State considers that there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this section, he shall, before or at the same time as laying before Parliament a remedial order or draft remedial order, lay before Parliament a written statement of those reasons.'.
  No. 39, in schedule 2, page 18, line 36, leave out Schedule 2.
  Mr. Garnier: We had an interesting discussion about clause 10 in Committee last June. It is appropriate to revisit some of the arguments that were deployed on that occasion while discussing these amendments. We are returning to this debate on clause 10, which gives the Government the power to amend the law by using a fast-track procedure, because we remain convinced that it is wrong in principle. We have stated that in Committee and my noble Friends have made the point in the other place. On both occasions, the Government have not provided us with any compelling answers.
  Bluntly, the clause is designed to increase the power of Ministers, to diminish the role of Parliament, and to weaken our democracy. At this point, I imagine that the Home Secretary wishes to leap to his feet to say that I am being unfair, that this is merely a fallback procedure, and that clause 10(2) makes it clear that it can be used only if a Minister of the Crown considers that there are compelling reasons for doing so.
  I shall explore that proviso in a minute, but first I must emphasise that this basic provision, designed to bypass our normal parliamentary procedures, is just one more facet of the Government's attack on our constitution, aimed at increasing the power of the Executive and diminishing the power of the people, through their elected representatives in Parliament, to hold the Government to account.
  We are witnessing this centralising grip in every aspect of the Government's so-called modernisation—that grossly over-used word—of our constitution. We see it in their insistence on list systems for elections to the European Parliament: power is taken from the people and given to the party. We see it in the Prime Minister's proposals for proportional representation, as evidenced by the Jenkins commission, which is rigged in its composition and rigged in its terms of reference. We see it in the Prime Minister's half-baked proposals for the so-called reform of the other place, which abolish the rights of hereditary peers because they are
  1326
  undemocratic and based on the patronage of the past, only to substitute them with a system of patronage and nepotism in which all the power is placed in the hands of—surprise, surprise—the present and much-revered Prime Minister.
  Those systems are wrong, and—to give him his due—the Home Secretary knows that they are wrong. It is precisely because he knows that they are wrong in relation to the Bill that he has introduced what is now clause 10(2), which provides that the fast-track system may be used only if Ministers consider that there are compelling reasons to do so. It is further fair to the Home Secretary to say that it is reported that he has strong objections to abolishing our tried and tested system for electing Members of Parliament and replacing it with a system of proportional representation. He, at least, is said to understand that that is wrong for a host of reasons, but particularly because it diminishes the power of the people to choose not only their elected representatives but the complexion of their Government.
  We start from the position where even the Government recognise that their proposals for the fast-track procedure—for the diminution of Parliament—are wrong in principle, yet they persist with them. I question whether they understand why they are wrong in principle. I am not sure that they do.
  The European convention on human rights is not a system for making laws: it is not a substitute for Parliament. It is a broad framework within which all our laws should be framed and with which our laws must comply. The courts will tell us, after due argument, whether some aspect of our law is incompatible, but it is not for the courts to redesign those laws. They are not equipped to do so. It would be wholly undemocratic if they were to attempt to do so. That is the role of Parliament. What possible justification is there for the Government to diminish the role of Parliament? What are the compelling reasons which are to entitle Ministers to override the rights of the people and of our electorates to be represented in these matters by their chosen representatives? We are not told.
  The Government have proposed no definition. I can find nothing in the previous pronouncements of the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor or of any Ministers, here or in the other place, to pin down the circumstances in which these compelling reasons will be considered by Ministers to exist. It is not that there will be too many of these changes and that it would clutter up Parliament. We are told repeatedly by the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary that we expect changes to primary legislation to be rare. I said in Committee in June that there have been only 13 such changes in the 32 years since 1966, when we first granted the right of individual petition to citizens to take their cases to Strasbourg.
  Even if there were to be a significant increase in the number of these cases, does that not make it all the more important that there should be full and proper parliamentary scrutiny of any changes to the law? As the Home Secretary knows, I am a lawyer and I have a high respect for lawyers and judges, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who is sitting beside me. However, we are not to be ruled by judges, and the courts are not the right place for making laws. The people are not represented in the courts. The judge has to decide the issues brought to him by individual litigants. The duty of the lawyers

  1327
  representing their clients is not to the public at large, and it is not even to the programme of a party tested before the electorate, but to the aim of winning that particular case to protect the immediate interests of that individual litigant.
  The cases to be expected are not all that many, but the issues are seldom trivial. Perhaps the Minister or the Home Secretary will tell us whether triviality is one of the grounds for deciding that the reasons are compelling. Most of the cases involve great issues of real difficulty. Let me illustrate that by reference to the three cases that we all know to be outstanding and requiring legislative change at the present time. I correct myself, because only two cases are now outstanding, as Chahal no longer applies following the immigration legislation that was passed just before the recess.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire has tabled a parliamentary question to the Home Secretary to ask him how many cases he knows of at the moment, but we know of two: Bowman and the recent case about the rights of parents to chastise or not to chastise their children. Both those cases involve complex issues about the liberty of the subject and the security of the state. Are they to be regarded as compelling reasons? I ask that question forensically, as our probing amendment suggests that national security and public health may be compelling reasons for a fast-track procedure, but I emphasise that this is merely a probing amendment. When we have debated it, I intend, with the leave of the House, to withdraw it, for the very consideration of those issues shows how inappropriate it would be in many cases.
  Is Parliament not to have a full opportunity to discuss the nature of the necessary court procedures? Is it not to have a full opportunity to discuss, amend and test the Government's proposals in relation to national security, or is the whole thing to be rammed through in a simple three-hour debate and one vote at the behest of the Government of the day? I have observed the number of people in the Chamber this evening, and in the Committee during our debates in June. I do not expect all Members of Parliament to be present for every debate, but it is instructive that all parties are pretty thinly represented this evening. Matters on which we are deciding now and which will be dealt with by remedial orders at the behest of Ministers deserve greater attention, and I fear that they will not get the House's attention in the three-hour debates that clause 10 foreshadows.
  The case raised by Bowman is illustrative. We were disappointed, frankly, that the present Attorney-General, for whatever reason, did not go to Strasbourg to argue the case himself. He is an elected Member of Parliament and understands, as probably nobody else in that court building does, the care with which our electoral law has been framed. Now, if we are not careful, a coach and horses is to be driven through that system.
  My right hon. and learned Friend touched earlier on the case involving the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and Mrs. Phylis Bowman. They oppose, as is their democratic right, our present abortion laws, and delivered 25,000 leaflets to every household in the constituency of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) personally attacking her for her pro-abortion views on the subject, which differed strongly from their own.
  1328
  It was the personal attack on the hon. Lady that fell foul of our election law. The society was perfectly entitled to deliver leaflets expressing its views on the issue, and inviting each voter to take that issue heavily into account in deciding how to vote. What happened, however—and what will happen if others are permitted to do likewise—was that our system of a balance of arms, or equality of spending, which governs most people's view of what is a fair system, was deeply undercut. As I have said, we do not know the Government's view. Perhaps they propose to consult—but will they say that, whatever their own conclusion, this is a suitable case to ram through via the fast-track procedure and a debate lasting a mere three hours?
  6.30 pm
  Then there is the question of the extent to which parents may or may not punish their children. Our present law permits what is described as reasonable chastisement. In one case, a British jury held that the caning administered was not unreasonable. It must be said—with respect to the court—that that may have been a surprising decision. In any event, in recent years the court has on the whole been careful to give a proper margin of appreciation, as the phrase goes—to give proper discretion—to individual member states on domestic matters such as this.
  Now the British Government must decide what to do about a delicate and difficult issue, which should be subject to full debate, with a proper opportunity for amendment and reflection on the part of both Houses. It is not suitable for such a measure to be pushed through by means of an unamendable order after a three-hour debate. I am sure that the Minister will accept that, even if he accepts nothing else that is said by the Opposition. Our first request to the Government, and to the Home Secretary, is simply for them to drop clause 10 and to accept our amendment, which would remove it and schedule 2.
  The Home Secretary does not need these powers. He has shown us no "compelling reasons" why he should have them, either in terms of business management or in terms of advantage to the citizen—although I suspect that business management may underlie the Government's proposals.
  Schedule 2 also demonstrates the Government's growing disregard of Parliament. First, there is its Henry VIII quality. Paragraph 1(1) states:
  "A remedial order may … contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the person making it considers appropriate".
  Paragraph 1(2) states that those powers include
  "power to amend or repeal primary legislation"—
  including both primary and subordinate legislation—
  "other than that which contains the incompatible provision".
  Consequential or transitional provisions might be reasonable, but how do the Government propose to justify incidental and supplemental provisions?
  What is more, the whole procedure becomes increasingly unparliamentary. To allow for the normal and proper requirements of primary legislation, the schedule provides for draft orders to be laid and for representations to be summarised. As I said in Committee, the power to edit is a power that editors are loth to give up. The power

  1329
  to summarise is a power that sub-editors are loth to give up. I am afraid that, when the power to summarise representations is given to the relevant Minister, my alarm bells start ringing in clarion.
  Changes as a result of representations are to be explained, but what is the excuse for going outside normal parliamentary procedures? Not only do our normal procedures hold the Government to account; they are faster and more flexible than the procedures that are being proposed. The aim is plainly to bypass Parliament and enhance the power of the Executive—and all this is in the name of modernisation.
  During our last debate, I crudely commented that clause 10 constituted not so much a Henry VIII clause as a Henry XVI clause. Despite the crudity of my analogy, I do not resile from it. Our request is this: we ask the Government to drop both clause 10 and schedule 2. They will be perfectly able to proceed with primary legislation when faced with a declaration of incompatibility.
  We all await with interest the Government's answers to our questions. What are these "compelling reasons" for overriding the rights of the people in Parliament? Where and how will the fast-track procedure benefit the citizen? Is the truth that behind this unjustified measure lies not the good sense of the Home Secretary, but the requirements of his Whips—the business managers—the jackboot of the new Government enforcer and the disregard of Parliament for which the Prime Minister's reputation is increasing daily?
  The clause, and the schedule, will return to haunt this Government and this Prime Minister. They will—I trust—be one of the factors that will wipe the smile from the Prime Minister's face in the coming weeks and months. Clause 10 is a dangerous clause, and schedule 2 is a dangerous schedule. I invite the House to agree with us that the Government ought to consider the issue rather more maturely.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I suspect that the Prime Minister's smile will be reinforced when the Bill is passed, and we ensure that human rights are enhanced and ordinary citizens are given access to their rights. That is what the Bill is really about.
  The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) commented on the number of hon. Members present. I, too, regret the lack of attenders, but I noted earlier that the number of those present was roughly proportionate to party membership in the House, although it occurred to me that our proposals did not seem to have caused a large number of Opposition Members to rush into the Chamber and express their outrage. Perhaps that is because we cantered through many of the arguments in Committee—although I noted then that not many hon. Members were expressing such outrage.
  Mr. Garnier: I am not going to express outrage. I simply wish to remind the Minister gently that mine was not a party political point but a parliamentary point—a House of Commons point. The fact that I was able to make it, although my party is largely unrepresented this evening, reinforces my good will.
  Mr. O'Brien: In a sense, I accept that good will. I agree that it would have been better for far more hon.
  1330
  Members to attend our debates, given the importance of the subject. Mine is a different point, however. My point is that, if Opposition Members had been enormously concerned—if they had felt that our proposals matched the hyperbole that the hon. and learned Gentleman employed at the beginning of his speech—I suspect that far more of them would have been present, complaining about what the Government are doing. That has not happened, because the Government have proceeded thoughtfully and constructively throughout consideration of the Bill, in an attempt to ensure that we take on board the points made by Opposition Members—as well as our hon. Friends—and construct a lasting provision that will genuinely enhance human rights in this country.
  Let me deal with the details. Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 would add two new subsections to clause 10. At present, clause 10(2) provides that, if a Minister of the Crown considers that there are compelling reasons for proceeding under clause 10, he may by order make such amendments to the legislation as he considers necessary to remove the incompatibility. Amendment No. 40 would limit "compelling reasons" to cases in which a failure to proceed would be likely to jeopardise national security, public health or the liberty of the individual. Amendment No. 41 would require the Secretary of State—before or at the same time as laying before Parliament a remedial order or draft remedial order—to lay before Parliament a written statement of those reasons.
  The requirement for compelling reasons in clause 10(2) is itself a response to concern expressed here and in another place about the remedial order provisions. It is there to make it absolutely clear that a remedial order is not a routine response in preference to fresh primary legislation. We would not want to go further, as in amendment No. 40, and limit "compelling reasons" to the three categories mentioned. There may be other circumstances that constitute compelling reasons sufficient to justify a remedial order: for example, a decision of the higher courts in relation to basic provisions of criminal procedure affecting the way in which, perhaps, all criminal cases must be handled.
  An example is a provision that might invalidate a crucial part of the codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, or provisions relating to the detention of suspects. Therefore, there are a number of issues where we would want to proceed with care. We also might need to respond very quickly simply to avoid the criminal justice system in such cases either collapsing or not being able to deliver justice and proper convictions.
  "Compelling" is a strong word. We see no need to define it by reference to particular categories. In both the outstanding cases that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough has put to me, our view is likely to be that those would not create the compelling reasons that would justify a remedial order. In any event, on those issues—electoral law and chastising children—everyone would expect primary legislation rather than a remedial order. I hope that that gives some reassurance.
  I noted that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said that this is, in a sense, a probing amendment. He has asked me some clear questions about how we would perceive those two cases and I hope that those are clear answers. We do not expect that those will be the sort of issues in which remedial orders would be likely.

  1331
  On amendment No. 41, if Conservative Members look at schedule 2, they will find that a document must be laid before Parliament containing certain information. It must explain the incompatibility that the remedial order or draft remedial order seeks to remove, and it must state the reasons for proceeding under clause 10 and for making an order in the terms in which it is made.
  Therefore, the document is bound to explain why the Government believe that there are compelling reasons for making a remedial order and what those are. The document must be laid before Parliament and will be available for the debate in each House on the motion for affirmative resolution, which will be necessary before a draft remedial order can be made, or in order for an urgent remedial order to continue in existence, so amendment No. 41 is unnecessary.
  The approach in amendments Nos. 38 and 39 is more extreme. They would simply remove clause 10 and schedule 2, so that there would be no procedure at all for amending legislation by order to remove an incompatibility with the convention rights. That raises the principle whether it is right, even in tightly drawn circumstances, to amend primary legislation by order.
  It would be open to the Government to take no action in response to a declaration of incompatibility—that issue has already been rehearsed during this afternoon's debates—but, where a declaration is made, a Government who are committed to promoting human rights, as we are, will want to do something about the law in question. It is possible for primary legislation to be introduced and passed quickly, but the pressures on the timetable can make it very difficult to find a slot.
  The power to make a remedial order is there for cases where there is a very good reason to amend the law following a declaration of incompatibility or a finding by the Strasbourg court, but no suitable legislative vehicle is available. Where a remedial order is made or proposed, we accepted that the procedures for parliamentary scrutiny needed to be strengthened. That is why the requirement to provide a document containing all the relevant information and a statement providing a summary of any representations on an order or draft order was added to schedule 2 in Committee.
  We think that we have the balance right here. Clause 10 and schedule 2 enable Parliament to fulfil its responsibilities and ensure that onerous powers are not given to the Government. Our proposals safeguard parliamentary procedures and sovereignty, ensure proper supervision of our laws and ensure that we can begin to get the ability both to enforce human rights law and to create a human rights culture. They also ensure that we can do it in the context of not having to worry that, if something is decided by the Strasbourg court or by our courts that creates an incompatibility, we do not have a mechanism to deal with it in the quick and efficient way that may be necessary.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, and, to some extent, I think that he has sought to meet the criticisms that we have made. The only pity is that the logical outcome of his argument is that he should accept our demand that clause 10 and schedule 2 be dropped from the Bill.
  I have done my best to listen very carefully—I notice the Minister frowning at those strong words—but I want to focus on the portion of his speech where he sought
  1332
  to describe the sort of case where normal parliamentary procedure would be ridden over and where we would go to the remedial order procedure.
  The thing about the remedial order procedure—this is the frightening thing and why it is worrying that the Chamber is not fuller—is that it creates a parallel system to Parliament that does not fully engage Parliament. Schedule 2 sets up a system whereby the Government put out their ideas, consult for 60 days, come to Parliament, say what they are going to do as a result of their consultation, and then ram their provisions straight through Parliament.
  6.45 pm
  If we are going to have that extra parliamentary procedure, which to some extent mirrors our normal parliamentary procedures, why do we not stick with the parliamentary procedures themselves? That has not been properly explained by the Minister or the Home Secretary. This is simply put forward as some sort of reason for hastening things on. It is not good enough.
  If the Government are going to wait for 60 days while they consult, the immediate urgency is removed. If in rare cases—I think that it is generally agreed that these cases would be rare—they have to use this fast-track procedure, they need to get on quickly. They are not going to be able to get on much more quickly than if they come to the House.
  I have been in the House for nearly 20 years. Time and again, the Opposition have accepted sensible remedial legislation fairly rapidly by consensus. It is rare that sensible and uncontroversial amendments to the law—as a result, for example, of a respected ruling by an international body such as the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg—are made the opportunity for parliamentary hay-making and obstruction. Therefore, to create a new and parallel system that is far less effective than the proper systems of Parliament is wrong in principle.
  The Minister sought to find an example where this rapid procedure is needed. I may have missed something that he said, and I hope that he will remind me if I have, but the only example that I thought I heard him mention was the need to amend codes of practice under PACE. Did the Minister mention another example?
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The other example was some basis on which suspects may be held.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Both those examples fall by the wayside, for this reason. As I understand it, and I do not have the legislation at my fingertips, the amendment of codes of practice under PACE can be done by statutory instrument in any event, so that is not a good example to bring forward in answer to the criticism and our suggestions that clause 10 and schedule 2 be removed from the Bill. It is not an answer.
  I can see that, if there were some serious criticism of our procedures in relation to the liberty of an individual, there is a need to move with speed, but the answer that the Minister has given in this debate sits ill with the answers that the Home Secretary was giving in our earlier debate about the need for Government, or a public authority, to have an appeal to Strasbourg.
  There, I was seeking to set a tight timetable of about 60 days for Government, in which Government, having been criticised and condemned on the ground that our law is

  1333
  incompatible by our own courts—by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords—should say whether they accepted the criticism and what they proposed to do about it. I suggested that, if the Government did not accept the ruling of incompatibility, they should say so, so that the citizen concerned could take the case to Strasbourg, which would, in any event, undoubtedly take at least another year to achieve. Nevertheless, the need for speed is offered as a reason for justifying an alleged fast-track procedure.
  I think that Ministers now accept in principle the Opposition's criticisms of the proposed procedure, although they did not accept them before. The Under-Secretary has rightly said—I was grateful to hear it—that there has to be a very good and compelling reason indeed for the Government, or any future Government, to attempt to use the fast-track procedure. Such occasions will therefore be rare and deal only with exceptional circumstances. The procedure will not be used regularly or apply to codes of practice—which, regardless, can be amended by statutory instrument. If there is a very good and powerful reason, affecting the liberty of the subject, I do not foresee Conservative Members, other Opposition Members or the Labour Members, as and when they come to be in opposition, standing in the way of such rapid amendment.
  I do not believe that the Government have made their case for the fast-track procedure. However, I give them credit for backtracking about as far as they reasonably can, having already set out on this course. None the less, the course is wrong. The Opposition must criticise it as wrong, and make it perfectly clear that such a provision should not be enacted.
  I am sorry to have to pitch in that criticism with our other criticisms of the Government trying to ride roughshod over Parliament. I hope that, by so doing, I will not be accused of hyperbole—although I may get the occasional rise of an eyebrow from a Labour Member. However, the Government are attempting to ride roughshod over Parliament. That is being demonstrated by the Jenkins commission, which is rigged in both its composition and its terms of reference. [Interruption.] Yes, it is.
  I see the Secretary of State for Scotland spitting and saying "rigged?" The fact is that the Jenkins commission was given terms of reference to examine only one side of a very important picture. The three people on the commission, highly distinguished though they are, were all picked and chosen because of their known views on the subject. The Secretary of State for Scotland may wriggle and wave his hand and seek to rise to the occasion—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We are not debating the Jenkins commission.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was making the point—I am entitled to make this point—that the fast-track procedure is an attempt to ride over the rights of the citizen to be represented in the proper making of legislation by their representatives in Parliament. The fast-track procedure is of a piece with other constitutional changes proposed by the Government—I have mentioned Jenkins, and I mention proposals to abolish the rights of hereditary peers in the House of Lords and to replace them simply by nominated Members.
  1334
  There is inadequate respect for Parliament, which, sadly, is shown also in this Bill. I put it down to the good sense of the Home Secretary—I am certainly prepared to concede this—that the proposal has now been heavily watered down, as we recommend. However, even something that is watered down can still be wrong in principle. We must therefore oppose the proposal. If Ministers will not accept this group of amendments, we must ask the House to divide on it.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 362.

  Division No. 364]

  [6.53 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Loughton, Tim

  Bercow, John

  Luff, Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Blunt, Crispin

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Body, Sir Richard

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Madel, Sir David

  Brady, Graham

  Malins, Humfrey

  Brazier, Julian

  Maples, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Mates, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Butterfill, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Norman, Archie

  Chope, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clappison, James

  Page, Richard

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Paice, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Paterson, Owen

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Pickles, Eric

  Collins, Tim

  Prior, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Randall, John

  Cran, James

  Robathan, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Duncan, Alan

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ruffley, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gale, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gibb, Nick

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gray, James

  Spring, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Greenway, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Syms, Robert

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tredinnick, David

  Horam, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Walter, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wardle, Charles

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wilkinson, John

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Willetts, David

  Wilshire, David

  Key, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lansley, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.

  Lidington, David

  1335

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cranston, Ross

  Alexander, Douglas

  Crausby, David

  Allan, Richard

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Allen, Graham

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Cummings, John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Darvill, Keith

  Austin, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Baker, Norman

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Davidson, Ian

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dawson, Hilton

  Beard, Nigel

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Denham, John

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dowd, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Edwards, Huw

  Berry, Roger

  Efford, Clive

  Best, Harold

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Betts, Clive

  Ennis, Jeff

  Borrow, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fisher, Mark

  Brake, Tom

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Breed, Colin

  Flint, Caroline

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fyfe, Maria

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Galloway, George

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Canavan, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godsiff, Roger

  Casale, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Caton, Martin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chaytor, David

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chidgey, David

  Gorrie, Donald

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clelland, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harvey, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cohen, Harry

  Healey, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Colman, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corbett, Robin

  Heppell, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cotter, Brian

  Hill, Keith

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoey, Kate

  1336

  Home Robertson, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Maxton, John

  Hope, Phil

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meale, Alan

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Michael, Alun

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hurst, Alan

  Milburn, Alan

  Hutton, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mitchell, Austin

  Illsley, Eric

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Moore, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jamieson, David

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Öpik, Lembit

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pearson, Ian

  Keetch, Paul

  Pendry, Tom

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pike, Peter L

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Plaskitt, James

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pope, Greg

  Kidney, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Radice, Giles

  Laxton, Bob

  Rammell, Bill

  Lepper, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Levitt, Tom

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rendel, David

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Linton, Martin

  Rogers, Allan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooney, Terry

  Lock, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Love, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAllion, John

  Roy, Frank

  McCabe, Steve

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McDonnell, John

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Salter, Martin

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sanders, Adrian

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McNulty, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McWalter, Tony

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McWilliam, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Singh, Marsha

  Mallaber, Judy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  1337

  Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Llew (Baenau Gwent)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

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

  Tyler, Paul

  Soley, Clive

  Vaz, Keith

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Spellar, John

  Wallace, James

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stevenson, George

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Watts, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Webb, Steve

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Welsh, Andrew

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  White, Brian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Swinney, John

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

  Wise, Audrey

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Worthington, Tony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wray, James

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wyatt, Derek

  Todd, Mark

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Touhig, Don

  Mr. David Hanson and Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  Trickett, Jon

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 13, in page 7, line 25, leave out lines 25 and 26.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 13

  FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 8, line 24, leave out from 'it' to end of line and insert
  'shall not make any determination which infringes, or which could lead to the infringement of, that right.'.
  We deal once again with the important subject of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. We make no apology for returning to it. It must be dealt with satisfactorily, and we do not believe that matters can be left as they stand. Having said that, we recognise that the Home Secretary has made sincere attempts to overcome the problems created for the Churches and other religious organisations by the incorporation of the European convention. We understand that he has listened to the views of Church leaders and to those of the leaders of other faiths.
  Amendment No. 4 would strengthen the protection that the Bill currently offers. It would extend protection of the freedoms to which I adverted, especially the freedom of religion. It was the widely held concern about religious freedom which led to the Lords amending the Bill when it began its progress through the other place. The Lords were anxious to afford a defence to Churches and other religious organisations.
  I refer to "Churches and religious organisations", as concerns about religious freedom cut across the boundaries of religious faith. Not only Christian
  1338
  Churches, but other great faiths and religious organisations are deeply interested in these matters. Churches, religious organisations and faiths all come within the ambit of the Bill, because, for some purposes, they may be considered to be public authorities.
  Turning once again to the definition of public authorities which is very much at the heart of our concern, it is not correct to assert—as has been asserted in some quarters—that Churches and religious organisations will come within the ambit of the Bill only when they are standing in the place of the state—for example, when they are providing education in Church schools. Although they will be deemed to be public authorities when they are standing in the place of the state, there may be other circumstances in which they will be public authorities for the purpose of the Bill.
  Like any other person or body, Churches, religious organisations and faiths and the charities associated with them will be public authorities within the terms of the Bill when they carry out functions of a public nature. Ultimately, the courts will determine when they are or are not carrying out functions of a public nature. It follows that, when Churches and religious organisations are deemed to be public authorities, they will risk legal challenge from any person who asserts that they have breached a convention right.
  It has come about in a strange way that a Bill which has been put forward as upholding human rights and promoting a human rights culture contains the seeds of a threat to the freedom of religious organisations and Churches to follow their own beliefs and order their own affairs—something that they cherish. It applies across the board.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland is on the Government Front Bench. He will be concerned about the position of the Church of Scotland, and he may well wish to say more about that this evening.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar)indicated assent.
  Mr. Clappison: I certainly bow in deference to the Secretary of State for Scotland in his knowledge of the Church of Scotland. I enjoyed the resumé of its history that he imparted to the House when we last discussed the Bill, particularly when he referred to the time during the late 19th century when one third of the ministers departed their livings and took their elders out into the wilderness—a feeling that we understand. I also enjoyed the next part of his speech when he said that that was followed by a period in which there was a great upsurge of enthusiasm among the congregations, and a great growth in the membership of the Church of Scotland.
  Like all the other Churches in the United Kingdom, the Church of Scotland comes within the ambit of the European convention and is under threat in the way in which I have described. How great is that threat? We simply do not know. To be fair, in the past, the European Court of Human Rights has often been conservative in that respect, but there is no guarantee for the future and for what will follow incorporation of the European convention.
  People who are well placed to know, such as Lord Alton and the Bishop of Ripon, are afraid of groups who, they believe, will be only too happy to take religious

  1339
  organisations to court to prove a point. Even if, ultimately, they are not successful, vexatious litigants can be a drain on those against whom they bring litigation. They could be a drain on the Churches in terms of cost and effort. The Home Secretary conceded that members of the congregations and Churches do not want to see their resources going into defending legal actions.
  Mr. Straw: I did concede that point when the matter was debated in the House in May, and it was partly for that reason, although it was a subsidiary reason, that I thought it extremely important to introduce amendments to the Bill which sought to address the substantive concerns of the Churches and to block their being at risk from vexatious litigants.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that intervention. As I said earlier, I accept that he has been entirely sincere and done his best in difficult circumstances to give the Churches protection. I now turn to why the amendments that replace those made in another place are inadequate and do not fulfil the objective that the Home Secretary has just described of giving the Churches protection.
  The problem is that the protection in the Bill is simply not strong enough; it is probably the weakest protection that the Government could have chosen. The Home Secretary's amendments simply require a court to pay particular regard to the importance of rights under article 9—freedom of thought, conscience and religion. A court may well consider that it has paid particular regard to the importance of those freedoms under article 9 and then find that, none the less, certain religious organisations are in breach of the convention. The Home Secretary may say that the provision affords religious organisations a defence, but it will not stop any of the challenges that they fear. He cannot reasonably assert that it amounts to a defence. It is merely a request or a requirement that a court pay particular regard to those freedoms. In itself, it does not amount to a defence.
  Amendment No. 4 would be an improvement, as it would afford such a defence. Under the terms of the amendment, a court cannot make any determination that infringes the freedom of religion or any other article 9 rights. It is a stronger and altogether more appropriate form of protection than that which is presently in the Bill. Even at this late stage, we invite the Home Secretary to give it serious consideration and to look carefully at what we believe is the stronger protection that it offers our Churches, faiths and religious organisations.
  If the Home Secretary is not prepared to accept the amendment, will he give us a careful explanation of his reasons, as we think that it is appropriate and we cannot see any reason why the Government should not give Churches and religious organisations stronger protection? There are precedents elsewhere in Europe for the freedom of religion to be given such protection, so we see no reason why similar circumstances could not prevail here. Religious freedom is one of our most cherished causes and it needs and deserves stronger protection from the possible threat that may arise under the incorporation of the European convention than is presently provided in the Bill.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for the manner in which he
  1340
  made his speech. I shall seek to reply in a like manner and to explain as carefully as I can why, with the best will in the world, we cannot accept the amendment.
  The matter was debated at considerable length on 20 May, when I spoke for almost 40 minutes. Let me reassure the Whips that I do not intend to do so this evening. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take as read some of the arguments that I made on that occasion.
  We never had the least intention of bringing forward a Bill that threatened religious freedom. I entirely subscribe to the sentiments that the hon. Member for Hertsmere expressed a moment ago. We did not believe that the Bill as originally drafted would have threatened religious freedom. However, concerns were expressed in the other place and here on the subject.
  Contrary to the admonition of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) that the Government are showing contempt for Parliament, I hope that hon. Members will acknowledge that none of us on the Treasury Bench has come to the debates with a "not invented here" attitude towards amendments from the Opposition or from the other place. I live in hope that there may be a broad consensus behind the Bill, so I thought it very important not to insist that the Bill as originally drafted represented the last word and the best judgment, but to take action on any serious concerns raised about the drafting. We did that for the Churches.
  For reasons that I explained at considerable length, we were not able to accept the amendments passed in the other place earlier in the year. We came forward with a new clause, which now stands as clause 13 on page 8. It says:
  "If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right."
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere made a point about the relative strength of the clause. Similarly worded clauses often say that a court "may" have regard to a particular factor. We have gone as far as we can to make the provision as strong as possible, saying not that the court may have regard, but that
  "it must have particular regard to the importance of that right."
  We believe that that is a strong provision.
  The amendment would replace those words with an alternative provision that would mean that, when such an issue arose, the court would not be able to make a determination that might infringe the article 9 right. As the hon. Gentleman has explained, the intention of the amendment is to protect the article 9 rights of religious organisations, even if other parties to the proceedings are asserting different and competing convention rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life under article 8 or the right to freedom of expression under article 10.
  The hon. Gentleman has asked me to explain why we are not willing to accept the amendment. If it had the effect that I have described—we believe that it would, because of how the words are used—it would be contrary to the convention.
  Mr. Clappison: Before the Home Secretary comes to the next stage of his argument, does he accept that, under

  1341
  the Bill, it will be possible for a Church or religious organisation to be found in breach of the convention, but that the amendment would prevent that by giving them a guaranteed defence?
  Mr. Straw: The answer is yes. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to place the Churches beyond the convention, so that, even if they were exercising the functions of a public authority and were plainly in breach of the convention, they could not be found to be in breach. If we accepted the amendment, the Act would be in breach of the convention. Instead of matters being resolved here, they would go off to Strasbourg, and the Court would eventually declare that part of the Act in breach of the convention. I understand the purpose behind the amendment, but it would be self-defeating.
  The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed by article 9.1 is not absolute. It is important to make that clear. Under article 9.2, it may be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of various factors, including the protection of rights and freedoms of others. In that respect, article 9 is similar to articles 8, 10 and 11. The court must weigh the competing interests and come to a decision. It is not open to a court to give automatic priority in all cases to one convention right over another.
  Having said that, I want to reassure the Opposition on two points. The hon. Gentleman said that a Church will act as a public authority not just when standing in place of the state, but when it carries out functions of a public nature. That is not correct. To the extent that the second part of what he said was accurate, he was simply tautologically making the same point as the first. Churches will be subject to the Act only when standing in the stead of the state and exercising functions of a public nature. I explained that at considerable length at column 1015 of the Official Report of 20 May. I should also like to reassure the hon. Gentleman on Strasbourg jurisprudence.
  Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for generously giving way for a second time. I appreciate that he is trying to give reassurance, but there is nothing in the Bill to say that Churches are public authorities only when they are standing in the place of the state. They are subject to the same definition in clause 6 as everybody else. They are public authorities when they are carrying out functions of a public nature. The Bill says nothing about Churches being public authorities only when they are standing in the place of the state. Whenever they carry out functions of a public nature, they will be public authorities.
  Mr. Straw: The convention exists to protect individuals from abuse by the state or by people standing in the stead of the state. That is the point of the convention. It is not there to deal with the abuse of rights by bodies acting in a private capacity. That is spelt out in the relevant clause. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall repeat what I said on 20 May about how we think that the Bill will operate in relation to Churches:
  "Much of what the Churches do is, in the legal context and in the context of the European convention on human rights, essentially private in nature … For example, the regulation of divine worship,
  1342
  the administration of the sacrament, admission to Church membership or to the priesthood and decisions of parochial church councils about the running of the parish church are, in our judgment, all private matters.
  In such matters, Churches will not be public authorities; the requirement to comply with convention rights will not bite on them. We do not believe that, for example, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland or the Roman Catholic Church, as bodies, would be public authorities under the Bill. I was asked to clarify that by many people, not least the Cardinal Archbishop.
  On the occasions when Churches stand in place of the state, convention rights are relevant to what they do. The two most obvious examples relate to marriages and to the provision of education in Church schools."— [Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 1015.]
  Having dealt with that, I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman on his second point. There is good Strasbourg case law to suggest that, in practice, article 9 rights are afforded considerable protection from attack. I should like to quote from page 359 of the text book "Law of the European Convention on Human Rights" by Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick:
  "Where there is a conflict between protected rights, the judgment of the Court in Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria speaks in favour of the strong regard to be had for religious beliefs (and therefore, Article 9 rights) in deciding priority between the competing rights. In that case, the state had interfered with the applicants' Article 10 right to freedom of expression by seizing and ordering forfeit a film found likely to offend the religious feelings of the Catholics who constituted the large majority of people in the region where the applicant proposed to show it. The Court upheld the interferences with the applicant's right as being necessary for the protection of `the [religious] rights and freedoms of others.' In confirming that the interference had a legitimate aim, the Court said: '… the manner in which religious beliefs and doctrines are opposed or denied is a matter which may engage the responsibility of the state, notably its responsibility to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the right guaranteed under Article 9 to the holders of those beliefs and doctrines'".
  The passage went on:
  "—in the context of religious opinions and beliefs—may legitimately be included an obligation [on individuals] to avoid as far as possible expressions which are gratuitously offensive to others".
  The authors conclude:
  "This is a strong affirmation of the power and even the duty of states to protect manifestations of religious belief."
  7.30 pm
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere invited us to speculate on what might happen if the Court in Strasbourg or the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords had a rush of blood to the head and, say, became evangelical atheists. I do not think that that is going to happen. Who knows what would happen if courts of the land or the European Courts went mad? All sorts of things could happen.
  On the whole, the best guide to the future—indeed, in many ways the only guide—is the past. The Court's record provides substantial reassurance. So should the history of Europe, which was written in blood until 1945. Much of that blood was spilt in the alleged cause of religious belief and religious conflict. Many of the states of Europe which now form the core of the European Union and the Council of Europe have had peacefully to accommodate conflict between Churches—between the Lutheran Church and the Catholic Church in Germany and the Catholic and other Protestant Churches in other states—just as we have in this country, and just as we at

  1343
  long last are seeking to do in the north of Ireland. Against that background, our courts and the European Court in Strasbourg have been and will continue to be alive to the need to respect the exercise of religious freedom. They have clearly done so in the jurisprudence that has been laid down in Strasbourg.
  The provisions of clause 13, which we introduced in May, require the Court to have particular regard to the importance of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. That is as far—honestly—as we think that we can go consistent with the convention. We believe that that has also been recognised by the Churches.
  I do not argue with the hon. Member for Hertsmere for seeking to revisit the issue, although the debate on the subject in Committee on 20 May followed the most intense period of discussion that I have had with representatives of the Churches. I was not able to meet their every request, but I can give a flavour of their response by quoting, as I did in Committee, from a letter that I received from Cardinal Archbishop Basil Hume, which said:
  "I have sought the best legal advice and my initial assessment is that the amendment in the form tabled by the Government"—
  which now appears in the Bill as clause 13—
  "may be the best that can be reasonably be achieved to reinforce the protection given by the Convention to the churches and other faiths under Article 9."
  I was very grateful to the cardinal archbishop for saying that. I happen to believe that the legal advice that he received is accurate.
  Since that debate—this should provide a further reassurance for the hon. Member for Hertsmere—we have received hardly any representations from religious organisations about the potential impact of the Bill on them. We received many beforehand. I understood them, took them on board and went as far as we could with them. It is interesting that, although they have since had five months fully to consider the matter, we have not received representations from them. If they thought that clause 13 was insufficient or capable of improvement, I am sure that they would have told us so.
  In the light of that explanation, I hope that the House will accept the reasons why we cannot agree to the amendment and that Opposition Members will not press it to a vote.
  Mr. James Wallace: Anyone who listened to the Home Secretary would accept that he has obviously given the matter considerable thought and has gone a long way to meet the many concerns expressed in Committee. He made the very telling point that there is a danger of going too far, thereby threatening the entire protection that is sought.
  I shall briefly comment on matters regarding the Church of Scotland, to which the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) alluded when he moved the amendment. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present. He will know from the representations that he has seen that the matter has been the subject of considerable discussion between the Government and the Church of Scotland over recent months. Although I am not sure whether it is relevant, I declare an interest as an elder of the Church of Scotland.
  As the Secretary of State for Scotland suggested in the history of the subject that he described in Committee, the Church of Scotland Act 1921 is constitutionally
  1344
  important. The Act was a settlement, agreed between Parliament and the Church of Scotland, that guaranteed the Church separate and independent jurisdiction in matters spiritual and paved the way for the union of the Church of Scotland and the Free Church in 1929. I would not want to detain the House, but it would be helpful if the Secretary of State confirmed that, when he wrote to the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on 13 May, he said:
  "I hope it goes without saying that I, and the government, would not wish the Bill to be a vehicle for undermining the position of the churches. That is certainly not the government's intention. Nor do we believe that it will be the effect of the Bill".
  Although I am sure that that sums up the Government's position, it would be helpful if the Secretary of State confirmed it in the context of the Church of Scotland. It is a matter of considerable importance and concern to the Church, which would certainly wish to be reassured that the Government are satisfied that the Bill is consistent with provisions of the 1921 Act and does not conflict with the Church's independent spiritual government and jurisdiction as recognised by that Act since 1921.
  Mr. Dewar: I was touched that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) remembered what I said on the previous occasion on which we debated this matter. Having a suspicious mind, however, I thought that he had read my remarks recently in order to pad out his own. Being a man of not infinite but occasional charity, I am prepared to take the more generous view of my own efforts on that occasion.
  There is no doubt that this is a matter of importance. If I remember rightly, I said on 20 May that I was in a slightly awkward situation because I was being asked to deal with a wide range of points that were put to me on matters furth of the affairs of the Church of Scotland and felt at something of a disadvantage. I remember rather vaguely, for instance, some interesting exchanges about the employment policy of the Dutch Salvation Army occupying the attention of the Committee for some time.
  On this occasion, I am not in the same difficulty, because the only contribution from outwith the respective Front Benches has been that of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who has taken a very close interest in these matters and who I know has—I do not know whether this is the right way of putting it—a long connection with the Church of Scotland, which he declared a few minutes ago.
  The issue requires close attention; it has been an anxious matter. As there have been for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, so there have been many discussions on the topic between myself, my Department and legal representatives in the form of the Lord Advocate and the procurator to the General Assembly. I pay tribute to the care with which the Church of Scotland has advanced its case. I do so in the knowledge that the clerk to the General Assembly is present. The discussion has been civilised, but the fact that it has a civilised face does not undermine or hide the fact that it was taken seriously by those on both sides of the argument.
  I do not know whether many of my colleagues in the House have taken the trouble to look at the Church of Scotland Act 1921; perhaps it is unfair to expect them to have done so. As I have said before, that Act must be almost unique in terms of House of Commons

  1345
  draftsmanship, certainly in this century. It is a splendid piece of prose, full of resounding cadences. Beneath those cadences, however, it is an attempt to define and offer protection to some significant and important principles. My first message is that we take those principles seriously.
  I am conscious of the fact that we are dealing with a United Kingdom Bill, and that the amendment is of general application. None the less, it is important that I take the opportunity to make a statement about the position of the Church of Scotland under the Bill, and especially about the relationship between the provisions of the Bill and the Church of Scotland Act.
  As I have already explained, concerns have been expressed during the passage of the Bill, both in the other place and in our Committee debate in May, that it may intrude unacceptably on the Church of Scotland's independent jurisdiction in spiritual matters. That was recognised in the 1921 Act, and relates to all matters of doctrine, worship, government and discipline in the Church.
  My colleagues and I discussed those concerns fully with the then moderator and his colleagues within the Church. What I say today is not new, and I shall not pretend that it is, but I hope that it will be a clear statement of the Government's policy and intentions.
  I set out in Committee the historical background to the position of the Church of Scotland in our national life, and the events that led to the Church of Scotland Act 1921, which recognised the independent jurisdiction of the Church of Scotland in spiritual matters. We do not want to do anything to disturb that important settlement.
  Of course, that separation does not exempt the Church institutions from the operation of the law in general. In my experience, that fact has been accepted in all the conversations about the legislation. The Church has always recognised that, if by mischance it did something that constituted a criminal offence, it would not be immune from prosecution simply because it asserted that it was operating in a purely spiritual matter.
  In addition, as we all know, the Church operates in non-spiritual areas—when it provides much-valued social work services, for example, and when it acts as an employer. In such matters, it is subject to the law, as is any other body in the field; there is no dispute about that.
  The civil courts in Scotland have held that they have jurisdiction to inquire whether a question before them falls within the definition of spiritual matters, but not to determine the spiritual matter itself. The Government do not intend to disturb that position.
  The general effect of the Bill is to bring rights home, and to make existing convention rights enforceable against public authorities directly in the courts of this country. We are making it unlawful for public authorities to act in a way incompatible with the convention rights. We have no intention of interfering with the religious freedom of any Church, and I emphasise strongly the fact that the Bill does not do so. We are not introducing any new civil rights beyond those in the European convention on human rights, which individuals can already found upon in Strasbourg; indeed, they have been able to do so for many years.
  1346
  In our view, the courts of the Church of Scotland are not courts for the purposes of the Bill. That is in line with the separation of Church and state embodied in the 1921 Act. The Church has suggested that the Church or its courts might, in some circumstances, be held to be public authorities in the terms of the Bill when acting in spiritual matters. However, in all our discussions with the Church, neither party has been able to come up with a specific example of how that possibility might arise. There has been no challenge in Strasbourg to the actions of the Church in the more than 40 years since we ratified the European convention. In addition, jurisprudence to date, both domestically and at Strasbourg, suggests that the civil courts are reluctant to become involved in the spiritual affairs of any Church. The Home Secretary advanced some important evidence to that effect a few minutes ago.
  7.45 pm
  Only last month, the 1921 Act was successfully invoked by the Church of Scotland in proceedings before an industrial tribunal. The role of the civil courts will be to determine whether the Church was acting as a public authority, and if so whether any convention right had been breached, and what is the minimum intervention necessary to redress that breach. That simply reflects what the court in Strasbourg has always done in relation to cases brought against the United Kingdom.
  In implementing our policy of bringing rights home, we would expect no less; equally, we would expect no more. Requiring the Church to carry out its functions in a way that respects convention rights, and providing a remedy in the civil courts if that is not done, does not affect the Church's independent jurisdiction in spiritual matters under the 1921 Act.
  We have already explained both here and in the other place why we have been unable to accept the various amendments proposed that would have exempted the Church of Scotland, when acting in spiritual matters, from the provisions of the Bill. Briefly, we have not been willing to concede a specific exemption for one Church; nor do we think that an exemption for Churches in general would be justified.
  The Church of Scotland is the only religious body in the United Kingdom that benefits from a statute guaranteeing its independence in spiritual matters, but there are many different religious groups in our society, all of which feel passionately about the preservation of their independence.
  It is not the intention of the Bill to force any religious group to do things that might be inconsistent with its principles and conscience. The amendment that we tabled in Committee applies to all Churches and faiths, and reassures them that the domestic courts will have particular regard to their rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under article IX. We could not treat the spiritual independence of the Church of Scotland any differently.
  I hope that I have been able to make it clear that the Government do not think that the Bill will undermine the position of the Church of Scotland under the 1921 Act. It is certainly not our intention that that Act should be undermined. We do not therefore think it necessary to make an explicit reference in the Bill, beyond the amendment that we have already made to recognise the position of Churches generally.

  1347
  I hope that I have also explained why it is neither necessary nor desirable to make the point explicit in the Bill. The Church sought reassurances from us following both its own extensive internal debate, and a motion passed at the general assembly in May. I emphasise the fact that, throughout all our discussions with the Church, it has unfailingly welcomed the Government's intentions behind the Bill and reaffirmed its commitment to convention rights.
  I have said to the Church that, if in practice the provisions of the Bill produce any real difficulties in connection with the 1921 Act, we shall be prepared to consider the matter, but that we shall not alter the Bill as it stands to deal with a possibility that we believe to be no more than hypothetical.
  I hope that those words are of some help in clarifying our intention and our position. As for the specific points made by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland, I hope that what I have said reinforces, and states at rather greater length, what I wrote in the letter that he quoted.
  Mr. Wallace: I thank the Secretary of State for that statement and the clarification that he has given, which I think will be widely held to be helpful.
  Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am looking now at the schedule to the 1921 Act, which says:
  "This Church is in historical continuity with the Church of Scotland which was reformed in 1560, whose liberties were ratified in 1592, and for whose security provision was made in the Treaty of Union of 1707."
  It would be somewhat brazen and presumptuous, even by my standards, if I were to put at risk such a fine pedigree so well established by custom and long usage. On those good intentions, I rest my case.
  Mr. Clappison: This has been a worthwhile debate, in the sense that it has given us an opportunity to raise our concerns about religious freedom. Despite the words of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, we remain unconvinced that the Bill as it stands sufficiently affords protection for religious freedom.
  I appreciate that the Home Secretary was choosing his words with care and that he has made considerable effort in that regard. I am not so sure about the reference to evangelical atheists. I shall have to think about that later—possibly with the aid of a dictionary. We think that the amendment would have afforded stronger protection.
  We accept that the Churches want to promote human rights, but I am sure that they share our anxieties that the Bill, as it stands, would have the unintended consequence of creating challenges and threats to religious freedom that do not exist at present. We are seeking not to take the Churches outside the Bill or the ambit of the human rights framework, but merely to provide Churches, religious organisations and faiths with a defence. We could have tried to take the Churches out of the Bill by tabling an amendment proposing that they were not to be public authorities for the purpose of the Bill. There are those in some Churches and faiths who would have preferred that course.
  Churches and religious groups will be within the framework of the Bill. They could be public authorities, and they could rely upon the provisions of the Bill
  1348
  themselves to bring an action against another public authority which was in breach in some circumstances. The Churches, if regarded as public authorities, could have an action brought against them by another person or body, alleging that they were in breach. If the amendment were passed, the Churches—by relying on their freedom of thought, conscience or religion—would be afforded a defence. In the Bill as it stands, there is no such defence.
  I heard what the Home Secretary said about Strasbourg, but it is interesting that, if the Churches were found to be in breach as public authorities in this country, they would have no right of appeal to Strasbourg as public authorities. I think that I made it clear in my opening remarks that Strasbourg's jurisprudence had been conservative in the past, but that is no guarantee for the future. The Secretary of State for Scotland's reference to the Dutch Salvation Army reminded me of the case brought against that organisation by a group under the auspices of human rights. The case was ultimately defended by the Dutch Salvation Army, but it was an expensive exercise.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that what I said was no guarantee for the future. Since we are talking about matters spiritual, I should say that there are no guarantees about the future that any of us can give, except that there will come a moment when we are no longer here. According to our point of view, we then may or may not be somewhere else. That is the only certainty there is about life—in the absolute sense. In the relative sense in which we must deal day by day, week by week and year by year, a considerable guarantee about the future conduct of the courts can be found in clause 2, which imports into English and Scots law the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which gives a high emphasis to the protection of article 9 rights.
  Mr. Clappison: That is so, but there may be cases that are not covered by that jurisprudence. Even so, in applying that jurisprudence, it may still be the case in some circumstances that the Churches or religious organisations could be found to be in breach. The Home Secretary cannot gainsay that, under the amendment, Churches relying upon an article 9 right could not be found to be in breach. No matter how we foresee the future, that is certainly a much more secure defence than the defence being provided by the Government—if, indeed, it is a defence at all.
  We join the Home Secretary in expressing the hope that there will not be unintended consequences from the Bill in the shape of challenges to our Churches and great faiths, and we hope that they will not find themselves brought before the courts by litigants—perhaps the vexatious litigants which some have foreseen—at great expense to themselves. We hope that that will not occur.
  We cannot express that hope with as much confidence as we would like. We cherish our religious freedoms, and we would have preferred to give them the superior defence afforded by the amendment—an altogether stronger defence. However, this has not been a contentious or partisan debate, and it is in the spirit of expressing that hope—although without much confidence—that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19

  STATEMENTS OF COMPATIBILITY
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 11, line 33, after `compatibility)', insert
  'which statement must be accompanied by a report setting out any issues which the Minister considers to be relevant to the question of the compatibility of the Bill with the Convention's rights and giving the Minister's reasons for stating that the Bill is compatible'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 11, line 36, after 'Bill', insert
  'which statement must be accompanied by a report setting out

  (i) any issues which the Minister considers to be relevant to the question of the compatibility of the Bill with the Convention's rights;

  (ii) the reasons why the Minister is unable to make a statement of compatibility; and

  (iii) the reasons why the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill notwithstanding the Minister's inability to make a statement of compatibility.'.

  No. 3, in page 11, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert—
  '(2) A statement and report made under subsection (1)(a) must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
  (3) A statement under subsection (1)(b) must be an oral statement given to both Houses of Parliament, and a report under subsection (1)(b) must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.'.
  Mr. Clappison: We now come to the question of statements of compatibility. As matters stand, a Minister must, before Second Reading of any Bill, make a statement to the effect that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European convention, or state that, although the Minister is unable to make that statement, the Government wish the House to proceed with the Bill. We will be interested to hear from the Government examples of when they think the latter might apply.
  We believe that the proposal puts more emphasis on presentation than substance—something with which we are not unfamiliar under this Government. If Ministers are to pronounce in this way and make statements of compatibility, it would surely be more meaningful for them to give their reasons. We wonder just how many Ministers will state that they are unable to make a statement of compatibility before Second Reading. How many will come to the House and say, "This is a bit dodgy, but we want you to go ahead anyway"?
  We suspect that Ministers will use the measure as a rubber stamp to present their Bills as complying with the European convention, irrespective of the reasons for doing so and without an informed debate on the subject. We think that it would say rather more if Ministers were prepared to give their reasons. We are not heartened by the attitude taken by the Government so far when they have had considered opinions given to them about some of their legislation.
  The Minister will be aware that certain provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill were subject to critical questioning by a group of distinguished academics as to whether those provisions would comply with the European convention on human rights. Since then, there has been a steady stream of legal and academic
  1350
  opinion about some of the measures that the Government have proposed and whether they comply with the Government's own incorporation of the European convention.
  A few days ago, the chairman of the Bar, Heather Hallett QC, said that reforms in the pipeline from the Government could be challenged under the new Human Rights Bill, soon to reach the statute book. She said:
  "It would be a dreadful irony if the very first challenge in the courts was to legislation passed in the same session by the same Parliament … If the reports of some of the proposals emanating from the Home Office are accurate, that is exactly what will happen."
  The Government will legislate with one hand, but will be challenged under that very legislation on the other. That is not a desirable state of affairs, and a rubber-stamp statement of compatibility—as appears in the Bill—is not much of a guarantee against it. We cannot see why Ministers should not be prepared to give their reasons so as to make this measure more than a rubber stamp, and we look forward with interest to the Minister's explanation of why the Government are not prepared to be open and give their reasons.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The three amendments relate to statements of compatibility, or incompatibility, made under clause 19. The clause is a demonstration of the Government's commitment to human rights. It is one which we need not have included in the Bill, but we have chosen to include it because of the importance we attach to these rights. The added responsibilities placed on a Minister are justified on that basis.
  By requiring a Minister in charge of a Bill to give a statement on its compatibility, we are underlining our commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny of all new policy measures. Also, where the Minister states that he is unable to make a positive statement about the Bill's compatibility, that will be an early signal to Parliament that the possible human rights implications of the Bill will need to be given careful consideration by the House—especially, no doubt, in Committee.
  The amendments add to the requirements placed on Ministers by clause 19. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would require a statement on the compatibility or otherwise of a Bill to be accompanied by a report setting out issues relevant to the Bill's compatibility with the convention rights and, where the Government wanted Parliament to proceed with a Bill for which a Minister could not make a statement of compatibility, reasons why they nevertheless wished the House to consider it.
  Amendment No. 3 would provide that an oral rather than a written statement, as the Bill currently provides for, be made in respect of a Bill for which a statement of compatibility could not be given.
  I can understand why the amendments have been tabled, but in many ways it is a matter of judgment as to how the House will proceed. Our view is that the amendments are unnecessary, because the House provides for the examination of such issues in its procedures in any event. The amendments would almost create an artificial mechanism to do what the House already does. A statement as provided for by the Bill as it stands will be sufficient to achieve the important aims that both we and, in many ways, Opposition Members want clause 19 to deliver. That would flag up the issue to the House, which

  1351
  in the normal course of events would be able to look into the reasoning behind the statement of compatibility. Inevitably, that will be an issue during the passage of a Bill.
  A debate would provide the best forum in which the Government's thinking could be fully explained. I cannot imagine how the mere giving of such a statement could enhance the debate that would normally take place on Second Reading or in Committee, which would usually elicit the required answers.
  8 pm
  In such circumstances, a written report would not provide much added value. In some cases, a requirement to provide such a full report might also be odd—for example when the terms of a Bill meant that there was no connection with the convention and no convention rights were affected. Then it would merely be a pointless exercise.
  Similarly, the requirement for a Minister to make an oral statement when he or she cannot make a statement of compatibility, as imposed by amendment No. 3, is not necessary or appropriate. Acts of Parliament do not usually regulate what a Minister will or will not say in the Chamber. A written statement would be readily available to whoever wanted to read it. As I said, anything in that statement and any other aspect of the human rights implications of a Bill could be debated under the normal proceedings of the House.
  What might be of assistance would be any report made on the Bill, for example, by a human rights Committee of the House, if it decided to set one up. In due course, that might certainly be a way of informing the debate, whether in Committee or elsewhere, and looking into the detail of why such a statement was made by the Government. Obviously, such a Committee of the House could discuss the detail.
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has tabled the amendments for legitimate and proper reasons, in the sense that he wants to be sure that the House has the opportunity to discuss the issues fully, but his concerns are covered by the procedures of the House.
  The hon. Gentleman asked for some examples of when the Government might want to proceed with a Bill that was not compatible with the convention. One example would be if we were legislating on the length of time for which the Secretary of State might authorise the detention of terrorist suspects under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts. The Strasbourg Court found our court in breach of article 5 of the convention some years ago, but we have maintained the arrangements because of the situation in Northern Ireland through a derogation as set out in schedule 3 of the Bill.
  We already know that we may want to proceed with certain Bills even though there is some incompatibility. It is difficult to predict all the situations that might arise, as they are exceptional, like the example I gave.
  The hon. Gentleman will realise, I think, that it is right that the Government should flag up an issue to the House, which can go into the detail and the reasoning behind the statement of incompatibility through its normal procedures. He will see from my example that we may properly want to proceed with a Bill that is incompatible
  1352
  with the convention, although that will be rare and exceptional. I hope that, in view of my comments, the Opposition will withdraw their amendment.
  Mr. Clappison: Although I listened carefully to the Minister's arguments, I remain afraid that this will be little more than a rubber stamp and a presentational device. The hon. Gentleman and the Government would do well to be aware of the stream of legal and other academic opinion about the consequences for possible future legal action of some of the legislation that they have put before the House. The Opposition certainly do not want such a situation to arise, but we fear that it might.
  I am not convinced by what the Minister has said. This is more a matter of presentation than of substance. However, in view of the lateness of the hour, I will not press the matter to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20

  ORDERS UNDER THIS ACT
  Amendments made: No. 14, in page 11, line 40, after `power' insert
  'of a Minister of the Crown'.
  No. 15, in page 11, line 42, after 'power' insert
  'of the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State'.
  No. 16, in page 12, line 1, after 'made' insert
  'by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State'.
  No. 17, in page 12, line 5, at end insert —
  '() The power of a Northern Ireland department to make—

  (a)rules under section 2(3)(b) or 7(9)(b); or

  (b)an order under section 7(11);

  is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.
  () Any rules made under section 2(3)(b) or 7(9)(b) shall be subject to negative resolution; and section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (meaning of "subject to negative resolution") shall apply as if the power to make the rules were conferred by an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  () No order may be made by a Northern Ireland department under section 7(11) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, the Northern Ireland Assembly.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 21

  INTERPRETATION, ETC
  Amendments made: No. 18, in page 12, line 6, at end insert —
  '"amend" includes repeal and apply (with or without modifications);'.
  No. 19, in page 12, line 17, at end insert —
  ' "Northern Ireland Minister" includes the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland;'.
  No. 20, in page 12, line 24, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert—
  '(f) Order in Council —

  (i) made in exercise of Her Majesty's Royal Prerogative;

  1353

  (ii) made under section 38(1)(a) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 or the corresponding provision of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; or

  (iii) amending an Act of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);'.

  No. 21, in page 12, line 28, leave out from 'made' to `under' in line 30.
  No. 22, in page 12, line 30, after 'legislation' insert
  '(otherwise than by the National Assembly for Wales, a member of the Scottish Executive, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department)'. —[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 12, line 34, at end insert—
  ' "the Sixth Protocol" means the Protocol to the Convention agreed at Strasbourg on 28th April 1983;'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31, 32, 34 and 35.
  Mr. O'Brien: The amendments all concern the death penalty and arise as a result of decisions in Committee and an announcement made earlier in the year. In Committee, amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) were accepted on a free vote. They inserted references to articles 1 and 2 of the sixth protocol into clause 1 of the Bill and inserted some of their text into schedule 1. The sixth protocol provides for the abolition of the death penalty.
  However, my hon. Friend's amendments did not define the sixth protocol for the purposes of the Bill, and we are now doing so in amendment No. 23 to clause 21. My hon. Friend also left out a sentence from article 1 of the protocol—inadvertently, I am sure—which is inserted at the correct place in the sentence in schedule 1.
  The other three amendments arise from a decision announced by the Minister for the Armed Forces in a statement to the House on 24 July, in columns 1372 to 1386 of Hansard. He announced that the Government intended to abolish the death penalty for military offences in all circumstances, whether in peace or wartime.
  Accordingly, amendment No. 31 inserts a new subsection into clause 21, which provides that any liability to the death penalty under the Armed Forces Acts is to be treated as a liability to life imprisonment or some lesser penalty instead. That general statement will be supplemented by detailed amendments to the Armed Forces Acts when the next legislation to consolidate them is introduced. The services were fully involved in the review and consultation took place at all levels, up to and including the chiefs of staff, who believe that the time is right to abolish the death penalty.
  Amendment No. 32 provides that the new subsection inserted by amendment No. 31 comes into force when the Bill receives Royal Assent. That is consistent with our intention to honour the decision of the House by proceeding without delay to sign and ratify the sixth protocol.
  Amendment No. 34 provides that the new subsection inserted by amendment No. 31 has effect in any place in which the Armed Forces Acts have effect, which is necessary because, unlike the Human Rights Bill, those Acts are not limited in their territorial extent to the United Kingdom. That is consistent with our intention to extend
  1354
  the ratification of the sixth protocol to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, subject to their agreement. Jersey and the Isle of Man have already agreed and Guernsey will next week debate a recommendation from the Advisory and Finance Committee to do so.
  The practical effects of the amendments are such that Parliament will not be able to reintroduce the death penalty, other than for acts committed in time of war or imminent threat of war, unless the United Kingdom denounces the European convention on human rights.
  The inclusion of article 2 of the sixth protocol in the Bill shows that we recognise that, in ratifying the protocol, we must ratify the whole protocol rather than any part of it. Leaving article 2 in the Bill does not signify any intention to reintroduce the death penalty for acts in time of war. Parliament could do that whether or not article 2 were in the Bill, but that would be inconsistent with the Government's position as set out in the statement that my right hon. Friend the former Minister for the Armed Forces made in July. The amendments give effect to that new policy.
  Mr. David Wilshire: The death penalty is always a matter for a free vote in the House—as, indeed, it was in Committee—but as there is unlikely to be a vote tonight, I want to ensure that my views appear on the record.
  I have always believed that capital punishment is not a party political issue—it transcends the partisan quarrels that we have in this place. I have opposed judicial murder all my life, however hideous the crime and however great the desire for punishment, even in times of war. In my 11 years in the House, I have supported every attempt to abolish the death penalty in the armed forces. I want simply to say that I support this attempt tonight.
  Mr. John Maples: I shall not oppose the amendments, but I shall ask the Minister some questions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I have always voted against the reimposition of the death penalty; I cannot envisage any circumstances in which I would not do so except in the narrow area of military discipline in time of war.
  We are talking about very serious offences in wartime, such as assisting the enemy in battlefield conditions; we are not talking about peacetime, when the disciplinary aspects of the matter are not relevant. However, I want to know why we are dealing with the death penalty in the Bill. I know that the matter was discussed in Committee, but it is extraneous—it is not necessary for the incorporation of the convention or for the accession to protocol 6.
  I am aware of the statement made by the former Minister for the Armed Forces, but, like my hon. Friends, I thought that the matter would be dealt with in the new military discipline Bill, which we expect to be brought before the House in the parliamentary Session after next. That would have given us the opportunity for an extensive debate about this radical and fundamental step. I do not think that there is any prospect of the death penalty being enforced in peacetime between now and then, so I believe that it would have been better to wait.
  The Minister said that the matter had been discussed at all levels up to and including chiefs of staff. I forget his exact words, but I think that he said that they thought that

  1355
  the time had come to implement the measure. I would appreciate his assurance that they are confident that the ultimate penalty will not be needed in wartime conditions and that they are happy for it to be abolished. If they are happy, I have no further argument except to say that circumstances could change. Are we—the Minister may have answered this—committed for all time to the measure, short of resiling from the treaty under the general provisions of public international law?
  I am slightly concerned about the interpretation of article 2 of protocol 6 and whether it applies only to laws that are notified at the time of accession to the protocol. Is the Minister confident that a state that did not have the death penalty in wartime at the time of accession could subsequently give notification that it had enacted it, so registering such a derogation? Article 2 seems to imply that, when a state accedes to the protocol, it can retain the death penalty for wartime military offences. Is the Minister saying, as I think he is, that that applies equally to a subsequent derogation?
  8.15 pm
  Can we withdraw from protocol 6 under article 5 without resiling from the whole convention? If I understand what the Minister is saying about article 2, that question is redundant, but if my interpretation is not right, I believe that we could withdraw from the protocol under paragraph 3 of article 5, which states:
  "Any declaration made under the two preceding paragraphs may … be withdrawn by a notification addressed to the Secretary General."
  My concern is that that applies only to those territories that are nominated under paragraph 1 of article 5, not to a withdrawal from the protocol. If so, is it the case that to withdraw from the protocol one would have to withdraw from the whole convention, which, of course, any state has the right to do under public international law?
  I should be grateful if the Minister were to give his interpretation, on the advice that he has been given, of article 2 of protocol 6. If the House were, under wartime conditions, to reintroduce the death penalty in military discipline legislation, could such a derogation from the convention be registered with the Secretary General?
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) set out his views on the death penalty, which many of us share. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) asked trenchantly why we were introducing the measure now, in this Bill. He obviously was not present when we discussed the death penalty; the House, not the Government, decided that protocol 6 should be introduced into the Bill. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) tabled an amendment on the death penalty, I suggested that the Bill was not the right vehicle for the matter. However, the House in its wisdom took an alternative view, so the Government had to table these amendments.
  As I understand it, the Ministry of Defence was consulting on the use of the death penalty in military circumstances; my ministerial colleagues moved to examine the matter as quickly as possible in view of the wish of the House. That is how we arrived at where we are today—the House took the view that the matter was best dealt with in the Bill rather than in military legislation, and it is right and proper that the Government should listen to the views of the House.
  1356
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the chiefs of staff were satisfied with the way in which we were proceeding. My information is that they are.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about article 2 of protocol 6. The question of derogation does not really arise here, because article 2 does no more than permit a state to have the death penalty in wartime. It is not so much that we are derogating; we would merely inform the powers that be, or make the necessary statement, that we intended to reintroduce it. Obviously, the House would have to make a decision then on its reintroduction into our law. Therefore, in time of war, should we wish to make that decision—I think that we would all hope that it would not be necessary—we would not be handicapped in a way which we would find unsatisfactory.
  Given those reassurances, I hope that the House will agree to the amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 24, in page 12, line 41, leave out 'or' and insert—
  '(ii) made'.
  No. 25, in page 12, line 42, at end insert
  'or the corresponding provision of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; or

  (iii) amending an Act of a kind mentioned in the definition of primary legislation;'.

  No. 26, in page 12, line 45, leave out 'Northern Ireland Assembly' and insert
  'Assembly established under section 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973;

  (da) Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly;'.

  No. 27, in page 13, line 7, leave out 'or (d)' and insert (d) or (da)'.
  No. 28, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
  '() order, rules, regulations, scheme, warrant, byelaw or other instrument made by a member of the Scottish Executive, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department in exercise of prerogative or other executive functions of Her Majesty which are exercisable by such a person on behalf of Her Majesty;'.
  No. 29, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
  ' "transferred matters" has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Act 1998;'.
  No. 30, in page 13, line 21, leave out subsection (5).
  No. 31, in page 13, line 23, at end insert—
  '(6) Any liability under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 to suffer death for an offence is replaced by a liability to imprisonment for life or any less punishment authorised by those Acts; and those Acts shall accordingly have effect with the necessary modifications.'.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Clause 22

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, APPLICATION AND EXTENT
  Amendment made: No. 32, in page 13, line 25, leave out 'and 20' and insert 20 and 21(6)'.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 13, line 33, leave out 'committed' and insert `taking place'.
  This is a drafting amendment to clause 22(4). At present it provides that clause 7(1)(b) applies to proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public

  1357
  authority whenever the act in question took place, but that otherwise clause 7(1)(b) does not apply to an act committed before clause 7 comes into force. Amendment No. 33 replaces "committed" by "taking place" so as to be consistent with the earlier reference.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 34, in page 13, line 35, at end insert—
  '() Section 21(6), so far as it relates to any provision contained in the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957, extends to any place to which that provision extends.'.—[Mr. Cle[land.]

Schedule 1

  THE ARTICLES
  Amendment made: No. 35, in page 18, line 28, at end insert
  `No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.'.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Schedule 2

  REMEDIAL ORDERS
  Amendments made: No. 36, in page 19, line 6, leave out 'or repeal'.
  No. 37, in page 19, line 10, at end insert—
  '() A remedial order may be made so as to have the same extent as the legislation which it affects:.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The House has made a number of changes to the Bill since it was introduced eight months ago. Some of those, such as amendment No. 33, have been detailed but necessary technical improvements. Some of the amendments have raised important issues of public policy, where we have sought to respond to the concern expressed both in this House and previously in the other place.
  I thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they have contributed to the debates. I hope that it will be acknowledged that we have sought to respond in a like way and, whenever we could, to accept the spirit and, in some cases, the detail, of amendments and, where we could not accept the precise wording, to come forward with alternative wording to meet as much of the mischief identified in those amendments as possible.
  Three sets of changes have been made as a result of concerns expressed here and in the other place. The first concerns remedial orders. We continue to believe that it should be possible to amend Acts of Parliament by a remedial order so as to bring them into line with the convention rights, but we have, after listening carefully to the debates, considerably restricted the circumstances in which they can be made, and we have significantly enhanced the parliamentary opportunities for scrutiny of those orders.
  1358
  We have explained that any response to a declaration of incompatibility by the courts, whether by fresh primary legislation or by a remedial order, is a matter on which the Government will propose, but it is for Parliament to dispose. One of the Bill's many strengths is that it promotes human rights while maintaining the sovereignty of Parliament and the separation of powers which underpins our constitutional arrangements.
  Secondly, there is the issue of the Churches, on which we had an interesting debate some minutes ago, including an entertaining excursion into the history of the Church of Scotland. We were, for reasons that I explained, unable to accept the amendments made by the other place which would have exempted Churches from the Bill's public authority provisions in the few circumstances where they would otherwise have been regarded as public authorities. At the same time, we recognised their concern about what they saw as the Bill's potential impact on such matters as faith and doctrine. In that regard, I tabled an amendment in Committee requiring the courts to have particular regard to the rights of religious organisations to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and in so doing I believe that the Government and the House were able to go a long way towards meeting their concerns.
  The third issue is that of the press. We never believed that the Bill would undermine the freedom of the press. The Strasbourg institutions attach a high value to freedom of expression, as is clear from a series of cases, including the "Spycatcher" case. Our courts will take that case law into account. But as with the Churches, we sought to meet the concerns of the press in a way which is consistent with the principles on which the Bill is based.
  We did so with an amendment in Committee requiring the courts, among other things, to have particular regard to freedom of expression when they are considering granting any relief which might affect it. The amendment followed detailed discussions with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, Lord Wakeham, and with media representatives. I think that the amendment was well received in the House and outside.
  I have commented on three particular issues that have arisen from the Bill. More generally, it is clear to everyone that the Bill has significant ramifications. Its provisions will have profound implications for the conduct of all public authorities, for the interpretation of legislation and for the operation of the court system at all levels. It will be much easier for individuals to rely on their convention rights against public authorities, and I believe that they will take that opportunity.
  Over time, the Bill will bring about the creation of a human rights culture in Britain. In future years, historians may regard the Bill as one of the most important measures of this Parliament. I talk about a human rights culture. One of the problems which has arisen in Britain in recent years is that people have failed to understand from where rights come. The philosopher David Selbourne has commented on the generation of an idea of dutiless rights, where people see rights as consumer products which they can take, but for nothing. The truth is that rights have to be offset by responsibilities and obligations. There can and should be no rights without responsibilities, and our responsibilities should precede our rights.

  1359
  In developing that human rights culture, I want to see developed a much clearer understanding among Britain's people and institutions that rights and responsibilities have properly to be balanced—freedoms by obligations and duties.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Home Secretary, who is always courteous in giving way. It does not follow exactly from what he has just said, but when do the Government expect to implement the Bill? When will the measure be brought into force?
  Mr. Straw: May I deal with that in a few moments after my next remarks?
  As the Bill nears the end of its parliamentary passage, it is right to look ahead to its implementation. Precisely because the Bill will have such a fundamental effect, we need to prepare for it thoroughly. We are providing training through the Judicial Studies Board for all courts and tribunals to enable them to deal adequately with the convention points that will come before them in case after case. We have allocated just under £5 million in addition to the normal budget of the Judicial Studies Board and associated bodies for this judicial training.
  We are also ensuring that Government Departments and other public authorities are properly prepared for the obligations that the Bill places on them. They will need not only to review their legislation and practices for compatibility with the convention but to ensure that their staff are trained in an awareness of the convention rights so that those rights permeate all the decisions that they make. We need to work out how the criminal justice system can best accommodate the additional pressures that are likely to follow from the Bill.
  To answer directly the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11), that means that there is a great deal of work to do before the Bill can be implemented. We need to carry that out in a fair, systematic, balanced and positive way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to give a precise date for implementation. It cannot happen in the near future, and I hope that he will forgive me for being unable to give a precise date. We want to implement the Bill as soon as is feasible, but we must all recognise that we cannot do so straight away.
  One exception is clause 19, which requires ministerial statements of compatibility. The clause, which is important for the presentation of Bills before the House, does not form part of the main scheme of the Bill, and could be brought into force well in advance of the main provisions. I am considering the options for implementing clause 19 with my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and others, and I hope to make an announcement as soon as possible.
  Mr. Maclennan: Before the Home Secretary leaves the matter of the date of the Bill's effective operation, will he tell us more about the criteria that he will apply in determining the practicality of proceeding? I understand that there is a need for judicial training, and the Home Secretary has spoken of the Government's efforts on that, but are there any other hidden obstacles to proceeding with implementation that he might want to disclose?
  Mr. Straw: I do not think that there are any other hidden obstacles—I was trying to search my brain for
  1360
  secrets, but there are none. We are bringing into Scots law and English law—by which, for the avoidance of doubt, I mean also the law that applies in Wales and Northern Ireland—not only the convention, which is easily stated, as it is in the Bill, but its jurisprudence. It is crucial that we properly prepare our judicial system, including senior judges who have in many ways been living with the convention for a long time.
  Often when the law is ambiguous, the courts use the convention and its jurisprudence as an aid to interpretation. However, the convention has not reached many Crown courts or county courts, and it has certainly not reached magistrates courts—it is outwith their experience. If we are not prepared and if we do not prepare those who serve in a judicial capacity, including 30,000 lay magistrates, we will find that sharp lawyers will seek to make disruptive points. We must be aware of that—we have always acknowledged it—and we must be prepared for it.
  The Bill not only concerns the rights of individuals in a narrow sense, but will change our society's culture. For example, those who are charged with criminal offences have rights, and we must recognise and protect those rights, but others in society also have rights. It would be wrong to set sharp lawyers who have examined the jurisprudence against lay magistrates, justices' clerks, busy county court and Crown court judges who have not had the opportunity to do so. That would bring the Bill's implementation into disrepute. I want the process to succeed, so we need time to prepare for it.
  I do not want to implicate the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) in the process, but he has been closely associated with the project, both in opposition and in government. I thank him for that contribution. He knows that the Bill is an important priority for the Government, and that there was considerable discussion about it in the joint consultative committee—of which he was a joint chairman—of the Liberal Democrat party and the Labour party. He will recognise that we must get on with the project—I know that he is on the case—but we must balance that against the need for preparation.
  My next point may further reassure the right hon. Gentleman and, with a bit of luck, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire. The work of preparing for the Bill's implementation is not for the Government alone. We recognise that many outside the Government have a keen interest in how the Bill is implemented and want to contribute to its success. We draw on their expertise, as we did in opposition, and we take account of their concerns.
  As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said earlier, I have decided to establish a task force to assist the Government in the preparations for implementation.
  The task force will be chaired by my noble Friend the Lord Williams of Mostyn and will include my hon. Friends the Solicitor-General and the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department. The membership will also include those non-governmental organisations which have made extremely valuable contributions to the project and have continued to offer their advice as the Bill has proceeded through Parliament. They will include Francesca Klug, from the Human Rights Incorporation

  1361
  Project; Anne Owers, from Justice; Andrew Puddephatt, from Charter 88; Sarah Spencer, from the Institute for Public Policy Research; Veena Vasista, from the 1990 Trust; and John Wadham from Liberty.
  The task force will help us to create the human rights culture to which I referred. Its tasks will include maintaining a dialogue between the Government and non-governmental organisations on the readiness of Departments, other public authorities and the legal profession for implementation and on its timing; working together to heighten public awareness of the Bill relating to responsibilities as well as rights; providing training opportunities for public authorities outside Government, and co-operating with other organisations in disseminating awareness, particularly among young people, of the rights and responsibilities inherent in the convention.
  We are preparing guidance on the Bill which is designed to assist Government Departments and others, and I expect the task force to take a keen interest in that.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the abolition of the death penalty take place soon, or does it depend on the deliberations of the task force?
  Mr. Straw: That will take place on Royal Assent. It is a simple, straightforward and important matter. We do not have to wait a relatively long time before it comes into force.
  I hope that the task force will be able to have its first meeting in the near future and will continue to meet regularly, at least until the Bill is fully implemented. It will be of great practical use. I am grateful to those who have accepted the invitation to serve on the task force, and I look forward to it starting its work.
  I have looked to the future of the Bill because, with this Bill more than any other, the word is not the deed. We have started the business of introducing a formal statement of human rights into our law. That will not be completed until the European convention on human rights is embedded in our jurisprudence. Our immediate task is to complete our consideration of the Bill before it finally returns to another place.
  8.38 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I welcome the Home Secretary's explanation of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has to be abroad today, but he has been following and taking a close interest in the Bill and its development.
  The Home Secretary is right to emphasise that rights also involve responsibilities. The short speech by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) brought home to those who were in the Chamber the extraordinary reach that the Bill is likely to have. A great many lawyers will look at every aspect of it and seek to stretch it as far as possible.
  In respect of a human rights culture, it is important to stress that a human right given to one individual may adversely affect the rights of other individuals. It is important that the Bill be implemented in a way that balances the rights of all citizens fairly, or there will be some strange results.
  1362
  The Home Secretary was also right to say—I may not quote him quite correctly—that we do not know exactly where this legislation will lead us. When we acceded to the European convention in 1951, few people would have expected some of its far-reaching effects over the past 47 years. The decisions by the Strasbourg Court have not necessarily been radical, but their effects have often been more radical than the decisions themselves. For example, it was decided that parents could choose the type of discipline to be imposed on their children in school, which had the radical effect of removing what many people regard as old-fashioned systems of discipline. Nobody would have expected that to happen at the outset.
  We must be careful that cases brought before our courts do not lead to changes in our society that would not have the support of this House and of the country through its elected representatives. That is why it is extremely important that, when remedial orders are made, the House should have the fullest opportunity to consider them.
  The Home Secretary said that Governments propose and Parliaments dispose. It is important that that phrase should be profound as well as elegant, because if we were to use too much of the fast-track procedure, the Government would be proposing and Parliament would have little option but to dispose. The history of this Bill has shown that real improvements have been made during its proceedings.
  Although we may not have achieved all that we sought to achieve through remedial orders, we are grateful for the clear explanation by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), that "compelling reasons" means compelling reasons, and that the Government will consider it necessary or proper to use the fast-track procedure only in a narrow band of cases.
  I am also grateful that the Home Secretary made it clear that the Bill is not meant to create a substitute written constitution for this country. It is simply to ensure that our law is kept in line with Strasbourg law so that cases are dealt with more swiftly, easily and effectively. I continue to hope that, while there will be no formal right of appeal—there could not be—for Government and public bodies to Strasbourg, ways will be found to enable the public to know when the Government or a public body are deeply concerned that a decision of our courts at the highest level is wrong. They should know that an effective method is available to drive the matter on to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and that the ultimate determination will be in accordance with the decision of our highest judiciary. That judgment will therefore be binding not only on the citizens of this country, but on those of every other member state of the Council of Europe.
  I believe profoundly in the European convention on human rights, but it is a backstop. It must always be remembered that the convention was created after the war to prevent some dreadful things from ever happening again, and it should not start to reach into the nooks and crannies of the private lives of the citizens of these 30 or 40 countries. I hope that the courts will bear that in mind, and that reading the debates will encourage people to do that.
  Although we have opposed aspects of the Bill, we now wish it well and hope that it will be implemented effectively, to the benefit of the citizenry as a whole.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Maclennan: I also express my gratitude to the Home Secretary for the way in which he has handled the Bill—his openness to suggestions, and his diligence in pursuing arguments and proffering explanations. I believe that the Bill has benefited from the deliberations of Parliament, and that cannot be said of all our legislative activity.
  For me, the Bill is something of a landmark in personal terms. Fifteen years ago, in December 1983, I introduced a Bill that enjoyed a great deal of support—not, alas, from any of the current members of the Labour Cabinet. Indeed, their absence was noted when the matter was brought before the House again in 1987, by Sir Edward Gardner, from the Conservative Benches. Only 15 Labour Members supported the proposal.
  It has been a long haul to get to this point, and it is therefore a matter of great satisfaction that there has been such a clear movement of opinion—a movement that is, I believe, reflected in the judiciary. When one thinks of the arguments that were made 10 years ago about how such a measure might politicise the judges, and how that was considered to be a baffling obstacle to the reforms that are here encompassed, one can take great satisfaction from what has happened.
  I pay particular tribute to my noble and learned Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has campaigned for even longer, and whose individual contribution to the debates is probably without parallel.
  Mr. Straw: I should like to be associated with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about Lord Lester.
  Mr. Maclennan: My noble and learned Friend will be most grateful, as will my personal friend, David Selbourne, the philosopher, from whose home I returned on Saturday to read the Home Secretary's remarks about dutiless rights. They were most appositely chosen, for it is true not only that obligations balance rights, but that rights cannot be secured without duties being observed. Too often, that has been lost sight of.
  A couple of questions remain, which are not entirely clear to me and which may not become clear for some time, about the impact of the Government's decision on implementation. I am grateful for what the Home Secretary has said about the task force on implementation. Some of the work that he proposes to assign to it might have been undertaken by a human rights commission, and he is clearly seeking voluntary help to fulfil some of the necessary groundwork. I hope that there will be urgency in implementation.
  I am not entirely satisfied that these matters can be handled effectively by our courts until the matter has come before them. It is prudent not to rush into instant implementation, and thereby run the risk of discrediting the process. However, that is not a reason for long delay. It is clear from what the Home Secretary said in reply to my intervention that he shares that view.
  Subordinate legislatures, to which power is being decentralised, could be in some difficulty if the Bill is not implemented. The Home Secretary will be aware that provisions in the Northern Ireland Bill, the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Act 1998 require legislative proposals to be compatible with convention rights as set out in this Bill. It would be unfortunate if legislative
  1364
  issues arose and there were some question as to whether the proposals of the three bodies concerned were incompatible with the Bill, and that could not be resolved because the Government had not given effect to this Bill.
  Mr. Straw: As I explained earlier, it is my intention to bring clause 19 into force as soon as possible, and well before the rest of the Bill. Clause 19 requires Ministers, when they present a Bill, to give a clear statement on whether they believe, on the basis of good advice, that the Bill is compatible with the convention. That provision, as it affects the United Kingdom Parliament, will come into force earlier than the provisions of the Scotland Bill, the Government of Wales Act and the Northern Ireland Bill, and should have an impact on those bodies.
  The second point is that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. An intervention should be brief. The right hon. Gentleman's second point should be dealt with in the winding-up speech.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his intervention. He has gone some way to removing my concern, which flowed from clause 28 of the Scotland Bill. That provides that the Scottish Parliament should have legislative competence only in respect of matters for which there is no incompatibility with convention rights. I am greatly relieved if the declaration of a Minister is sufficient to remove that condition, and if that will be triggered by the earlier implementation of clause 19.
  I do not want to conclude my contribution to the debate on a minor, perhaps querulous, note. The issues that are covered by the Bill are of historic importance. Although the Minister has said that the Government do not intend to take a step towards establishing a written constitution, I do not doubt that that is, in fact, what is happening.
  In drafting the Bill, the Government have been extremely careful to avoid the possibility of judges striking down the legislation of Parliament, on the ground that it would fall foul of fundamental law. That is understandable in the light of the current attitude of judges, who would not altogether welcome such a power. There can be no doubt, however, that judges have changed their minds to the extent that they broadly support this measure. I anticipate that, as they have inspired confidence that they would use the power judiciously, they will feel less reluctant to take the greater responsibility of deciding that Parliament has gone beyond the accepted view of people, as expressed in a written constitution. I do not consider that an embarrassing prospect; indeed, I think that many would regard it as highly desirable.
  I also think that—as the Minister emphasised—the Government have sought to secure what they describe as the sovereignty of Parliament. Earlier, I expressed doubt about whether that was necessary or even desirable: I felt that the people were sovereign, and that their views could be expressed outside the House.
  Mr. Straw: That is a Scottish point.
  Mr. Maclennan: Indeed. It has always been understood by the Scottish courts that that is the position. However, such a philosophical argument, or

  1365
  discussion, is not appropriate in this context. In this Third Reading debate, we are discussing what is in the Bill, and what is in the Bill is highly satisfactory. I believe that it will reinforce protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of our people, that it will not lead to a landslide of litigation, and that it will provide valuable support to ensure that those fundamental rights and freedoms are sustained, as all who have spoken today wish them to be.
  8.57 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) referred to what is in the Bill. It may seem odd, on Third Reading, to deal with what is not in a Bill, especially given that, during today's debate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should not talk about what is not in the Bill, because the purpose of Third Reading is to talk about what is in the Bill.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Home Secretary has shown a willingness to take on the issues that have been raised, and to amend the Bill. It has therefore become more comprehensive, and deals more effectively with Labour's manifesto promise to bring rights home. It may not be able to fulfil that promise completely, owing to what the Home Secretary, on Second Reading, described as a fine balance. It has not incorporated article 13 of the convention.
  It is said that the existence of the Bill creates an article 13 right. Interestingly, subsequent case law may suggest that article 13 constitutes a separate right, which can be considered separately. Someone whose human rights are not delivered by the institutions of government may have the right to have that properly investigated. In the Aydin case, the inability of the Turkish authorities effectively to use their power to visit the scene of the incident—this was following a rape—to summon witnesses and to call forensic evidence was queried. For example, no officers had been questioned in the critical initial stages of the investigation. I expect that that criticism of the lack of a domestic remedy might sound familiar to the parents of Stephen Lawrence.
  I believe that we can deliver a domestic remedy within the framework of the Bill as it is. I hope that the Home Secretary, in his usual approach of finding solutions—the task force that he has incorporated to work with him on this will do that effectively—will ensure that, in practice, that domestic remedy is delivered.
  We have done some radical things during this Bill. To the Government's surprise, we have incorporated protocol 6. That was an important step. In the White Paper that preceded the Bill, the Government announced their intention to introduce legislation that would mean that our laws were compatible with protocol 7, so that we could incorporate it. I urge a similar approach to be taken on the fourth protocol.
  We have already made announcements—there was a series of announcements during the summer—about the rights of British dependent territory citizens. If we extended their right to reside in the UK, some of the difficulties in ratifying the fourth protocol would be avoided, but what we have done in the Bill so far has consequences.
  1366
  The committee that—even though we have not approved the present setting up of a commission to establish the work of the Bill—has been envisaged in Ministers' statements should start work early on. It could assist Ministers in the business of making clause 19 statements; it would be good if that happened early on. I would be interested if the Home Secretary could respond to that point. However, I hope that the committee will also be able to look at the issues of ratifying the protocols that remain unratified because that is part of the unfinished business. If we do that, we shall do a better job of bringing rights home.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Straw: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the points that have been made in the debate.
  First, I thank the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) for the trust of his remarks. I had hoped that, during the passage of the Bill, it might be possible to deal with matters in a way that did ensure that there was some consensus behind it. I am pleased that it looks as though that may be the case.
  Of course I understand that the official Opposition—it is not their right, but their duty, to express different views—have reservations about aspects of the Bill. Its implementation needs to be not only prepared carefully, but monitored with great care.
  Earlier in the debates, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred to our intention, which we had flagged up in the White Paper, to establish, or to propose the establishment of, a parliamentary Committee on human rights—it is a matter for Parliament, not for us, to determine—to monitor progress in implementing the Act and the way in which it develops and, where appropriate, to make recommendations to Parliament for changes that may be needed.
  I should like also to thank the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for his particularly generous remarks about me. I am grateful to him for those. As I said before, I am grateful not only for the co-operation but for the inspiration that he and his colleagues have provided. He was right to say that some of us have been later converts to the cause than he was. I should have taken more notice of the views of my former head of chambers, Sir Edward Gardner, when he was promoting his Human Rights Bill in 1987. He was a distinguished man, and I should have listened to him. Nevertheless, we have got there in the end.
  Those of us who know Lord Lester know him to be indefatigable in pursuit of incorporation of the European convention on human rights. Although he is sometimes indefatigable to the point of exhausting his friends and colleagues, that only adds to our admiration of him. He has worked extremely hard on the issue and the Bill's passage, and he deserves our collective thanks.
  I should deal with the points made on Scottish and Welsh incorporation of the convention. The Government's intention is that implementation will occur on the same date for all constituent parts of the United Kingdom. On the obligation of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure either that their legislation is compatible with the convention or that, if it is not, they state that it is not, as I said earlier—in an over-long intervention—the

  1367
  Government's intention is that the obligation will not apply to those institutions before it applies to the House and to the other place. I should add that, in practice, both this Government and the previous Government have observed an obligation to attempt to ensure that Government legislation is compatible with the convention, albeit currently such compatibility can be tested only at Strasbourg and not in United Kingdom courts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) asked a question about article 13. Article 13 states:
  "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
  Although article 13 mentions a national authority, the truth is that it is there to provide a remedy for the international Court at Strasbourg. For that reason, the Government thought that it would be inappropriate to include article 13 in the Bill to incorporate the principal operational parts of the convention that provide substantive rights.
  English law and Scots law have been imaginative and innovative in developing new remedies. As proof of that, one has only to consider development of the idea of judicial review, which—from an almost standing start—has developed into a rather large industry.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Home Office knows all about that.
  Mr. Straw: That is true. However, we end up being judicially reviewed more regularly than some other Departments because of the nature of our business. It is right that we should be reviewed more regularly, as we are daily dealing with crucial issues of the liberty of the subject. I personally have no difficulty about the fact that the quasi-judicial decisions that I have to make—like the decisions that the former Attorney-General had to make—have to be made with very clear application of the law and judicial review.
  Judicial review and many other remedies have been developed, and the Government believe that the courts will be imaginative in developing other remedies if they are needed. If—as I do not think will happen—there turns out to be some gap in the remedies, the safeguard is that it will be possible for litigants to go to Strasbourg, where article 13 will arise.
  I do not want to go into too much detail about the Turkish case, except to say that it involved the most extraordinary allegations of failure against the Turkish
  1368
  police, failure on a scale that no one could conceive would apply in this country. The case involved the killing of civilian by a Turkish police officer and the almost total and wilful failure of the Turkish authorities to investigate. It is impossible to conceive of such a circumstance arising in this country. We considered the matter carefully but do not believe that we lose anything by the omission of article 13. Indeed, we think that there could be problems if we included it.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I apologise to the Home Secretary for intervening at the last gasp, but I do so on a narrow point that the Plymouth Brethren have asked me to put to him. The Plymouth Brethren occasionally have to exclude members, and they want a reassurance that, under clause 6, they will not be considered "a public authority". The Home Secretary kindly gave that reassurance in a letter to me on 25 June, but the Brethren would be grateful if he could confirm it on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Straw: Yes, I can. I am smiling because I have very good relations with the Exclusive Brethren in my constituency
  Mr. Bob Russell: That is the old brethren.
  Mr. Straw: The old Labour Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) said that from a sedentary position.
  In the debate on 20 May this year, I stated:
  "the regulation of divine worship"—
  and I mean regulation—
  "the administration of the sacrament, admission to Church membership or to the priesthood"—
  obviously, the term "admission" covers non-admission and exclusion—
  "are, in our judgment, all private matters."—[Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 1015.]
  It could not conceivably be asserted that, when it comes to questions of discipline, the Plymouth Brethren or the Exclusive Brethren are standing in the place of the state. I am therefore happy to give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks.
  We have had a very interesting debate. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed, and I look forward to the Bill receiving its Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  St. Helena
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Bob Russell: The people—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. An hon. Member is addressing the House. Other hon. Members should leave the Chamber quietly.
  Mr. Russell: The people of the island of St. Helena are not asking for anything new; they simply want restored to them the status which they enjoyed until it was shamefully removed by the previous Government under the British Nationality Act 1981. With citizens of other British dependent territories, they had the door slammed in their faces. They had their full British citizenship taken away, and found that they were no longer welcome as full members of the British family. Loyalty to the Crown and to Britain counted for nothing. There were rejected in a cynical move which embraced them and others from a handful of small British communities in various parts of the world in order to justify the introduction of legislation to stop people from Hong Kong coming to Britain.
  St. Helenians have always and only been British. They have British nationality but not full citizenship, which makes them second-class citizens. The islanders seek full British citizenship status, a restoration of their ancient rights granted by the British Crown. I look to the present Government to put right the wrong of a previous Government and end the years of rejection and dejection experienced by the Saints, as residents of St. Helena are generally known.
  The British dependent territories have a combined population of around 160,000, but tonight I shall confine my comments to the plight of those who reside on St. Helena. The island's entire population of some 5,500 could be accommodated in Colchester United's football stadium, with room to spare.
  Not all the 13 populated territories seek what St. Helena is asking. I understand that some are content with their current status. I hope that tonight the Minister will give a commitment that, sooner rather than later, and certainly in time for the new millennium, the Saints will be able to rejoice in the restoration of their previous status of full British citizenship.
  The door is currently locked. Recent speculation that perhaps the present Government are to open it is welcome, but is it true? It is not enough simply to say that the key has been found. The door needs to be unlocked and swung wide for the Saints to be invited back to where they rightly belong, to the status they had until 17 years ago—not so much marching in, but rather as members being welcomed back into the British family home whenever they are this way.
  Is it seriously suggested, regardless of the previous Government's motives, that the restoration of full British citizenship to 5,500 residents of the island of St. Helena will somehow create difficulties for Britain? It is an insult and nonsense even to contemplate a single practical difficulty or justification to maintain the outrage that has existed since 1981.
  1370
  I hope that the Minister will find her previous duty as Prisons Minister to be of help in considering releasing the Saints from the sentence of exile imposed on them by the Thatcher Government. She will, of course, be aware that Napoleon's exile is St. Helena's most historic claim to fame: while Napoleon would dearly have loved to leave the island for good, the vast majority of today's island residents do not wish permanently to leave their home in the south Atlantic, but seek simply the right to regain their status as full British citizens so that they can freely travel to Britain and return.
  The St. Helena Government representative in London, Mrs. Catherine Hopkins, told the Foreign Affairs Committee on 18 November last year:
  "From St. Helena's point of view, I doubt very much whether very many Saints would want to come to take up permanent residence in the United Kingdom. We regard St. Helena as home and the young people of the island have made it quite clear that they wish to see the island develop rather than coming to England. They would like access, they would like the ability to move freely."
  She added:
  "The idea that 5,500 St. Helenians are going to uproot themselves and come to Britain, where they would be very easily absorbed into the community is just ludicrous. There is no way it would happen."
  The vessel RMS St. Helena is currently moored at Cardiff, and tomorrow evening it makes its somewhat infrequent sailing from the UK to the island. It would be nice if the captain could take a message of hope with him from tonight's debate.
  To continue with the maritime theme, by one of those happy coincidences, today is Trafalgar day. Admiral Nelson was renowned for turning his blind eye. For 17 years, the British Government have been guilty of a double Nelson—closing their eyes and ears to the people of St. Helena. The time has come for Britain to stop wrestling with its conscience, and I look to the present Government to give St. Helena a fair break.
  Napoleon would no doubt be amused that today a citizen of France has easier access to Britain than do residents of the British dependent territory of St. Helena. St. Helena is not the only island in the south Atlantic with British roots. Indeed, had it been invaded by Argentina as the Falkland Islands were in 1982, presumably it too would have had the British Nationality Act 1981 amended to release its residents from their current second-class status. They would also have benefited from massive sums of British Government aid, as the Falkland islanders have for almost two decades. St. Helena's only ship, the RMS St. Helena, was called in to support Britain in the Falklands conflict, with Saints volunteering to be part of the crew.
  Britain has a moral duty to the island of St. Helena. In fairness, aid is given, but the amount is nothing like that given to the Falklands, which has a population less than half that of St. Helena—but then, St. Helena does not have oil.
  I first took a deep interest in St. Helena—a small island with an area of just 47 square miles, 4,400 miles from Britain and situated midway between Africa and South America—when a constituent wrote to me. His grandfather was born on the island. Perhaps a more fitting reason for the strong links being established between Colchester and the island is that the patron saint of Colchester is St. Helena—same spelling, but different pronunciation. One of the town's secondary schools,

  1371
  which I and my family attended, is called St. Helena, as is the town's hospice. There is a statue of St. Helena on top of the town hall tower—the highest building on the skyline. St. Helena is a saint from Roman times, and Britain's first Roman capital was Colchester.
  In June this year, a delegation of legislative councillors from St. Helena was welcomed to Colchester by the mayor. The official visit included a tour of St. Helena school and local craft workshops, which the Saints see as the type of business activity they need to help the island's economy. From January last year until July this year, a Colchester-based company, International Management Consultants Ltd., assisted the Government of St. Helena with its accounting systems and related matters. The current bishop of St. Helena has a sister who lives in a north Essex village not far from Colchester. I am aware of contacts between individual residents of Colchester and islanders. There are high hopes of establishing links between the island and St. Helena school.
  The island of St. Helena was discovered by the Portuguese on 21 May 1502—St. Helena day. The English followed in 1588, but not until 1658 was it colonised, becoming a Crown colony in 1834. Britain settled St. Helena with British people, and brought in other ethnic groups who were integrated into the British community. The local population has no nationality other than British. Rights to full British citizenship were confirmed by royal charter in 1673. Islanders enjoyed those rights for more than three centuries, but the British Nationality Act 1981 removed them, making the islanders second-class citizens, and virtual prisoners on their own island.
  I call on the Minister to give a pledge that steps to restore full British citizenship will begin without further delay, putting right a wrong that has caused so much unhappiness to the islanders for the best part of two decades. In the past year or so, the Foreign Affairs Committee has considered the plight of St. Helena as part of its dependent territories review interim report. A private Member's Bill to restore citizenship rights was presented by the Earl of Iveagh in the House of Lords. In this House, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) proposed a British Nationality (St. Helena) Bill, but it was dropped in April for reasons that perhaps the Minister can explain.
  We have been promised a White Paper for months on the policy towards British overseas territories. That will cover more than just St. Helena, whose unique case demands an urgent and unique response. For England's lost county, the status quo is not an option. Something must be done. St. Helenians have always been British. They are still British, and they only want the British Government to acknowledge that fact by restoring their birthright of full British citizenship.
  9.24 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) on securing this Adjournment debate, and on his choice of subject. He referred to my previous ministerial portfolio. Somewhat to my surprise, I find that, for my first debate as a Minister in the Foreign Office with responsibility for Europe, I am responding to a debate on St. Helena. I should convey to the House the apologies of the Minister of State, Foreign and
  1372
  Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who is abroad at the moment but to whom I shall report and with whom I shall discuss this debate.
  Probably all of us who are present will have appreciated the comments of the hon. Member for Colchester about the connections that he, his family, his constituency and his town have with St. Helena. I wish him success in establishing further links between his area and the island.
  In some ways, this debate is timely, because the comments of the hon. Member for Colchester can be very much taken into account in the overseas territories review. In another sense, however, it is perhaps not as timely. As he will realise, I am not in a position to give absolute answers to his questions, simply because the decision was taken to conduct a review of overseas territories, produce a White Paper, and come up with proposals, which we seek to do as soon as possible.
  The hon. Member will be aware, too, that we are discussing the constitution of St. Helena with its legislative council. We must await the outcome of those discussions and other studies, such as the transport access study concerning St. Helena. Taken together, we hope that they will put us in a position to give the people of St. Helena a future to look forward to.
  As the hon. Member for Colchester pointed out, St. Helena is a tiny island of 47 square miles lying in the south Atlantic, about 1,200 miles from Africa. It is one of the oldest and most remote of our overseas territories. It has certainly been described as a beautiful island. I am sorry not to have had the opportunity to visit it, but in the past, and in preparation for the debate, I have spoken to people who have been there and who follow events there very closely. From what I have been told, there can be no doubt about St. Helena's special place in the family of our overseas territories, each of which has a unique character.
  One hardship that St. Helena has had to face is the fact that it has few natural resources. Agriculture, fishing and a growing tourism-related industry are the main activities in the private sector. The role of the public sector—largely Government—is still considerable. The economy of St. Helena continues to rely on British aid for the bulk of new investment and to help balance the Government's revenue budget. That background will be well known not only to the hon. Member for Colchester but to other hon. Members who I know follow the affairs of St. Helena. It certainly affects all decisions about the island and, indeed, the status of its people.
  Towards the end of last year, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced that he would set up a review of British dependent territories in order to take a fresh look at our relations with them. In his speech to the Dependent Territories Association on 4 February, he announced some broad interim findings. Above all, he offered the dependent territories a new, modern, secure and lasting partnership with Britain. He emphasised the importance of the territories to us, and the fact that we take pride in the strong historic links—to which the hon. Member for Colchester referred—that have led to a unique family bond which matters to both sides.
  Britain remains committed to those sovereign territories that wish to retain their link with us, but the relationship needs to be brought up to date to reflect the idea of partnership in the modern world. One measure that my right hon. Friend took to reflect that change was to alter

  1373
  the way in which the territories were to be referred to. They are now to be known by the more appropriate title of UK overseas territories.
  My right hon. Friend also announced that, as part of the new framework for partnership, my noble Friend Baroness Symons would become the first Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister with responsibility for the UK overseas territories. Furthermore, to improve dialogue and understanding between Britain and the overseas territories, an annual UK overseas territories council will be established to provide a forum for Chief Ministers and councillors to raise their concerns directly with the Minister. I know that they feel strongly about such access.
  Those and other aspects of the review will be reflected in the White Paper that we shall lay before Parliament. It will cover a range of issues relevant to the overseas territories, and will give details of the partnership that we wish to promote. It will set out ideas for promoting the good governance of the territories, and address constitutional and human rights issues. It will also consider ways of accelerating sustainable development in economic terms and ensuring a sustainable environment, and how to promote the economic prosperity of the UK overseas territories within internationally accepted standards of financial regulation.
  The House may wish to know that the elected members of the St. Helena legislative council wrote to the Secretary of State in February congratulating him on his speech to the Dependent Territories Association conference. They welcomed the new partnership and the appointment of Baroness Symons as the Minister with special responsibility. I hope that they will find the White Paper, describing in full the modernised partnership that we want to create and the action needed to take to create it, acceptable, and that they will be content with the blueprint for the future that it sets out.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: I do not seek to anticipate the proposals that the White Paper will make, but does the Minister at least accept that the deprivation of the right to citizenship by the previous Government in 1981 was a callous and insensitive act, which not only slighted the people of St. Helena but critically disadvantaged them?
  Ms Quin: I understand that the citizens of St. Helena expressed their great disappointment, but it is important to find a way forward that both recognises their unique position and considers the position of overseas territories in general, to find something that works for the future, with which they will feel happy.
  Mr. David Heath: I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box in her new role. Does she accept that there is a difference between the position of St. Helena and its dependencies in terms of citizenship, and that of the other overseas territories, which involves issues of reciprocity that do not apply to St. Helena? Secondly, will she tell us when the White Paper will be produced, as it is already overdue?
  Ms Quin: There are other territories to which, as in the case of St. Helena, issues of reciprocity do not apply. I do
  1374
  not think that the island is unique in that respect. As for the timing of the White Paper, we hope to be able to publish it by the end of the year, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee from the Dispatch Box tonight. Given that we are talking about a number of overseas territories, I hope that he will appreciate that we want to ensure that we produce a White Paper that addresses all the issues concerning all the territories, and provides a basis on which we can build for the future.
  I know that hon. Members have raised such issues in past debates, and some of those debates were rightly mentioned by the hon. Member for Colchester. I certainly accept that the reception of the White Paper in St. Helena will depend largely on how it tackles the issue of the St. Helenians' claim to British citizenship. However, the issue of British citizenship is a complex one for the UK overseas territories. We are reviewing the appropriateness of the status to see whether changes are needed.
  A number of Government Departments are involved—it is not simply a Foreign and Commonwealth Office matter. Alteration of the status has implications which Departments need to consider. The Government are sympathetic to the concerns of St. Helena on the issue, and we have told the House so several times in the past. We have not changed our attitude in that respect.
  I would like to take this occasion to say a few words about how we are trying to address the economic status of St. Helena—an issue every bit as important to the inhabitants. In 1996, the St. Helena Government conducted widespread consultations, which led to the compilation and publication of a strategic review. This set out a range of policies and goals to deliver the St. Helena vision of a prosperous, peaceful and democratic society for all, achieved through sustainable economic, environmental and social development, leading to a healthy, and eventually financially independent, island.
  Incidentally, I accept the point that the hon. Member for Colchester made—that, in general, people are not seeking to leave their home territories. People want to feel secure and at ease in their home land, and I accept that the citizenship argument is not motivated by those concerns. I also accept that, in terms of their ability to travel, the inhabitants of St. Helena welcome the argument.
  The strategic review formed the basis of the St. Helena Government aid submission, on which negotiations took place between the St. Helena and UK Governments in 1996. These negotiations led to agreement on a country policy plan. This was a major step forward in the relationship between the British and St. Helena Governments, and underlined the importance of a partnership in which the members of the legislative council have a major role and responsibility.
  The UK Government agreed to make available more than £26 million for the three years from April 1997 to March 2000. The country policy plan is monitored regularly to see that it is on track, and to make any adjustments needed. A review of the country policy plan took place in January this year, and concluded that considerable progress had been made. Aid funds for the second year were therefore authorised.
  Another review is expected to take place in December. It will look at the extent to which the structural adjustment programme agreed between the two Governments is being followed. Decisions on aid support for the public sector investment programme, which assists the St. Helena

  1375
  Government with infrastructure development and renewal, will be taken in the light of the evaluation. The country policy plan has met the essential need to have a viable development strategy for the island's future.
  The plan recognised that there was an immediate need to improve the efficiency of the public sector. It acknowledged that private sector development was necessary to stimulate St Helena's economy and to help resolve the unemployment problem. Much progress has been made. Attempts are being made to find overseas markets for products such as honey and beauty products, and to develop coffee production on the island. However, more needs to be done.
  One area in which I hope we shall see progress is in complying with the aid agreement, whereby consumers of the enhanced infrastructure facilities—for example, water—contribute to the full cost recovery of that capital expenditure. The money thus generated can then be used under social services provision to target the most needy in the community and enable them to pay their bills.
  In July 1998, the St. Helena Government signed an agreement with Argos Ltd., a British-Falkland Islands fisheries company. From the beginning of next year, the company will invest in a range of shore-based facilities, including a freezing and processing plant which will offer employment opportunities for a number of St. Helenians. It will process the catch of St. Helena fishermen as well as that of the company's vessels.
  Other projects that will help the people of St. Helena include a management scheme to enable farmers to grow fruit commercially once again, road improvements, and the improvement of water quality.
  Technical co-operation funds from the Department for International Development are paying for 24 key technical and administrative staff on the island. Those funds also pay for a number of St. Helenians per year to come to the United Kingdom to study at colleges and universities.
  The St. Helena Development Agency was established to promote the private sector. It provides financial services, business advice and training. More than 100 jobs have been created or sustained by the agency in the past year.
  As I said, St. Helena has few resources except its people. We and the St. Helena Government have taken steps to ensure that as many as possible of them can develop their talents and lead productive lives. Some 60 St. Helenians are in the UK under the training and work experience scheme. Others have been recruited into the British armed forces. Not only do those schemes teach valuable skills: they also give schoolchildren on the island aims to work for, which is important.
  The Cheltenham and Gloucester college of higher education has a contract with the Department for International Development to provide educational services to St. Helena and to arrange training in the UK for its teachers and students. With the help of the college, schools on the island are preparing to implement the UK national curriculum in English, maths and science. A scheme was also agreed to improve vocational training on St. Helena. All those measures are valuable ways in which the status of St. Helena's work force can be improved.
  We have also taken some direct measures to minimise unemployment and increase incomes. New work permit arrangements announced by the Minister of State in
  1376
  December 1997 allow 30 people per year to come to the United Kingdom to work for up to three years accompanied by their dependants. A further 700 St. Helenians work on Ascension island, and about 300 have found work in the Falkland islands.
  Offshore employment has helped to achieve a reduction in unemployment, as have measures taken by the St. Helena Government, for which I pay them credit. Offshore employment has also produced a significant flow of remittance income, which in turn has helped to improve and expand the private sector housing sector. However, offshore employment is not always a one-way benefit, and it can create problems by exacerbating serious shortages of skilled labour in St. Helena, particularly in teaching, nursing and the police force. A task force has been formed by the St. Helena Government to find solutions to that problem.
  A major problem affecting St. Helena is the difficulty of communications with the rest of the world. I remember reading the debate in another place about St. Helena, in which a former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs talked of having dispatched one of his Ministers there, and of not seeing him for several weeks thereafter. He was surprised, but when he looked into the distances involved and how one gets there, he could well understand why that was the case.
  There is no airport on St. Helena. Regular access is provided by RMS St. Helena—a cargo and passenger vessel, owned by the St. Helena Government and operated by Curnow Shipping Ltd., based in Falmouth. That ship offers a scheduled service between St. Helena, Ascension, the United Kingdom and Cape Town, and it is subsidised by the Department for International Development by about £1.3 million each year.
  As I said in my initial response to the hon. Gentleman, an access study to review ways of tackling the problem was announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development in December 1997. That study started on St. Helena, and will be followed up in the United Kingdom. Its terms of reference will include all forms of transport and the feasibility of an airport.
  The tourist infrastructure on St. Helena is still underdeveloped. A director of tourism was appointed last year, and she has developed good contacts, particularly in South Africa. Yachts travelling across the Atlantic have been encouraged to stop in St. Helena, and a yacht race—the Governor's cup—is organised every other year with the Cape Town sailing club. The next race is in December, when I understand that a yacht will, for the first time, be crewed by St. Helenians. We wish them and the other participants well.
  I conclude with the words used by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the Dependent Territories Association in February. We will enter into a partnership with the overseas territories based on mutual trust and respect. We already have a firm basis from the past, founded on centuries of shared history. Together we face a new millennium, and together we will carry forward the relationship on a more modern basis.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Detrunking Roads
  Mr. Chope:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in response to his proposals for detrunking trunk roads. [54374]

  Dr. Reid
  We have received representations seeking clarification of the detrunking proposals, in particular resource transfers and timing. Concern has been expressed about detrunking certain routes, but we have also had some informal indications from local highway authorities of a willingness to take over routes proposed for detrunking. Officials have recently held constructive discussions with the Local Government Association about the proposals and there will be further consultations with the Association and individual local highway authorities.

  Communication Masts
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that planning permission is required from a local authority to erect(a) a radio and (b) a mobile phone mast under 15 metres high. [55657]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 grants a general planning permission for certain telecommunications masts providing that the mast is erected by a telecommunications code system operator licensed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under the Telecommunications Act 1984;
  the mast does not exceed 15m in height;
  the mast is not erected in a National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, conservation area, or the Broads; and
  the mast is not refused prior approval by the local planning authority within the period allowed under the Order. The authority must be given the opportunity to say whether they wish to approve, within 28 days, details of the mast's siting and appearance. The authority may refuse approval if they consider there to be a serious threat to amenity.

  A full application for planning permission is normally required for any mast which does not meet these criteria. We have recently consulted on a proposal to make masts erected within a site of special scientific interest subject to a full planning application and are currently considering the responses received. Apart from this proposal, we have no plans to extend the current requirements for full applications for planning permission for telecommunications masts.

  Country Landowners Association
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will 1106
  request the Countryside Commission to make it a condition of future grant aid to the CLA in respect of access to the countryside that the new access land is posted on the CLA's website. [55412]

  Mr. Meacher
  Publicity for new access opportunities is an essential element in opening up the countryside for public enjoyment. The Countryside Commission recognises the importance of publicity—through a range of media—and I am asking them to take this into account when setting grant conditions. Access land identified through the Country Landowners Association (CLA) Access 2000 scheme is already being posted on to the CLA's website.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to verify independently the nature and extent of the new public access to the countryside offered by the CLA under its Access 2000 scheme. [55417]

  Mr. Meacher
  None. The register on the CLA's website contains many details of the access involved and the CLA is responsible for the accuracy. We would expect it to verify information before it is made public on a website.

  House Repossessions
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in how many cases where income support was paid on interest payments on mortgages houses were repossessed by the mortgage lender in the last year for which figures are available. [55662]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not available.

  Rail Freight
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to promote piggy-back rail freight services in the West Midlands; and if he will make a statement. [55600]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack has for some time been considering an upgrade of the west coast main line to accommodate "piggyback" rail freight. The project would be likely to require substantial Government grant. Railtrack has not yet made an application.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has decided which of the seven locations currently being considered will provide accommodation for the Greater London Authority; and if he will make a statement. [56048]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Following a detailed assessment of the initial proposals for our seven short-listed buildings and sites we have selected two first-class options to study further. These are:London Bridge City, SE1—a new building to be constructed on the site between Tower Bridge and London Bridge on the South Bank of the River Thames; and
  Victoria House in Bloomsbury Square, WC1—a major refurbishment of an existing building first constructed in the 1920s.
  1107
  There was keen competition among all the short-listed teams to produce high quality ideas for housing the Mayor and Assembly in London. The architects associated with the two chosen projects—Will Alsop of Alsop and Stormer for Victoria House and Sir Norman Foster of Foster Associates for London Bridge City—are leading British architects with international reputations for innovation and excellence. I am confident that, with the teams associated with these two options, we will be able to ensure that the proposed new Greater London Authority is housed in a landmark building worthy of its status and one of which Londoners can be proud.

  I would like to thank all those Londoners who took the time to visit the exhibition at Oxo Tower Wharf where the ideas for the seven short-listed locations were on display. Nearly 1,000 people called in and the views expressed were carefully considered before coming to a decision. In fact, the two options I have chosen to take forward were the people's choice as well. Other factors such as finance, design, location and technical feasibility were also taken into account.

  The next step will be to work with the teams from the two selected options and with our expert advisers to explore the ideas in greater detail and see how well they will meet the needs of the new Greater London Authority. We also want these buildings to contribute to their local area and intend to work closely with the local authorities to ensure that this happens. I expect to announce a final decision in the new year.

WALES

  Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the drug and alcohol rehabilitation services in Gwynedd which are funded in(a) part and (b) whole by his Department. [55597]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  In the current financial year the Department is providing funding, under the Department's grant scheme for residential services providing care for drug and alcohol misusers, to Cyngor Alcohol Information Services (CAIS) towards the core costs of the Ty'n Rodyn residential unit at Lower Penrallt, Glanrafon Hill, Bangor, Gwynedd.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps his Department is taking to improve drug and alcohol rehabilitation services in Wales. [55599]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  One of the aims of the Welsh drug and alcohol strategy "Forward Together" is to improve the effectiveness of treatment and rehabilitation services for those who misuse. The Welsh Drug and Alcohol Unit (WDAU), which works to and is funded by the Department, provides technical advice and support to those in the field including drug and alcohol rehabilitation services in Wales.

  As part of their contract the WDAU has produced a Directory of Service Providers in Wales to ensure that commissioners are aware of the range of services available within localities. Guidance has also been produced for health and social service commissioners on
  1108
  the purchasing of drug and alcohol treatment services. The Directory and the Guidance have been given a wide distribution in Wales.

  Earlier this year the Department commissioned a review of the purchasing requirements for, and the provision of, residential and community services in Wales for people with drug and alcohol problems. The final report has recently been produced and the Department is considering how its grant scheme for residential services providing care for drug and alcohol misusers can best be utilised to support residential treatment and rehabilitation units.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales had been on hospital waiting lists for over one year at the latest available date. [55619]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  At 31 August 1998, some 9,573 residents in Wales had been on hospital waiting lists for over 1 year for treatment as an in-patient or daycase.

  Hill Farming
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent assessment he has made of the effect of current hill farming incomes on the rural Welsh economy. [55595]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Welsh Office officials are currently preparing income forecasts for hill farming as part of the annual review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands. This is an exercise to which we attach great importance. An assessment of the impact of recent trends in farm income on rural employment will also be made.

  Agriculture is estimated to contribute directly about 8 per cent. to total employment in the Less Favoured Areas (LFA). Agriculture also indirectly supports jobs in other industries; and published studies suggest that in the LFA every 10 full-time jobs in agriculture support approximately a further four jobs in related industries.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps the Welsh Office has undertaken in the past year to reduce homelessness in Wales. [55594]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  We have made regulations giving local authorities powers to allocate permanent accommodation to homeless people; we have assisted various voluntary bodies concerned with preventing and alleviating homelessness and rough sleeping; we have seconded an officer from the voluntary sector to advise local authorities on measures to deal with rough sleeping.

  Our other housing programmes are designed to increase the supply and quality of accommodation which will help reduce homelessness pressure.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Refreshment Prices
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee by what formula, and to what extent, the
  1109
  notional costs of (a) services, (b) rents and (c) rates are reflected in the prices of restaurants, cafés, bars and banqueting suites in the House of Commons. [55613]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  [holding answer 19 October 1998]: The House of Commons votes do not presently allocate costs to individual Departments of the House, although the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting in 1999 will lead to a greater degree of transparency of such costs in the future. Under the present arrangements, the Refreshment Department has a target to achieve an overall operating surplus of 5 per cent. on its trading account, but there is no direct linkage between the prices charged to customers using the Department's facilities and the costs (notional or actual) of common services, rents or rates.

  I shall ensure that a copy of the published Refreshment Department Trading Account for 1997–98 is sent to my hon. Friend. He will wish to note that the Department made an operating surplus of £445,476 (10.6 per cent. of turnover). Consequently, a sum of £462,429 will be transferred from the Refreshment Department trading account to the House of Commons Administration Vote in the present financial year for ultimate return to HM Treasury.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Compliance
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the President of the Council what progress has been made in ensuring millennium compliance in central Government's systems and equipment and in its suppliers. [54713]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The results of the last quarterly review, which I announced on 9 September 1998, showed that good progress is being made by Departments and agencies in tackling the year 2000 problem. Work on correcting priority, business-critical, systems is particularly well advanced. Over half of the returns reported that 50 per cent. or more of the correction work has been completed and in a fifth of cases this figure was as high as 90 per cent. Departments and agencies are also seeking assurances from suppliers that they will be able to continue to provide key products and services into the next century.

  The individual returns from the last quarterly review are available in the Library of the House together with my statement, a copy of which I sent to all hon. Members on 9 September.

DEFENCE

  Trainer Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 1998,Official Report, column 310, what options his Department has to extend the contract for the Grob 115D aircraft at the end of the contract period. [50432]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Negotiations continue with the preferred bidder for the Royal Air Forces Light Aircraft Flying Task. The intention is to recompete the 1110
  requirement at the end of the ten-year contract and there are consequently no plans to include options for extending the contract.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 1998,Official Report, column 310, what assessment he has made of the effective working life of the Grob 115D aircraft. [50433]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Grob 115D is certified for 15,000 flying hours for the type of flying operations the RAF plans to undertake, subject to normal maintenance inspections. Based on these criteria, and assuming a constant usage rate, the RAF assesses the working life of the aircraft to be around 30 years.

  Commercial Exploitation Levies
  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 what products his Department received commercial exploitation levies in each of the last three years; and what were the values of the levies. [55643]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 19 October 1998]: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Chlorine
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been carried out by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (Porton Down) to investigate whether short-term exposure to chlorine can cause long-term illnesses; when this research was carried out; and what were the results. [55331]

  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 21 October 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about research into possible long term health effects from short term exposure to chlorine.
  I informed you in my letter of 21 July, printed in the Official Report Col 469 dated 21 July, that DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence sector (CBD) had not carried out any research into possible long term effects of chlorine. This is still the case.
  My earlier letter also explained that CBD is aware of the general toxicology and health effects of chlorine gas, as reported in the open literature, particularly in relation to exposure occurring through industrial accidents.
  I hope this is helpful.

  CBDE Technical Papers
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many series of technical papers have been produced by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (Porton Down) since 1990; and what are the titles of each series. [55319]

  Mr. Spellar
  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.
  1111
  Letter from Mr. John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 21 October 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the number and titles of series of technical papers produced by DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence sector (CBD) since 1990.
  Since 1990 CBD has produced 8 series of internal reports, the titles of which are as follows:
  Field Trial Reports
  Field Trial Programmes
  Operational Granby Reports
  CBD Reports
  Technical Papers
  Technical Notes
  Technical Memoranda
  DERA Reports
  I hope this is helpful.

  Royal Tournament
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what compensation payments have been made as a result of injuries incurred by military personnel participating in the Royal Tournament in each of the last five years. [55695]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Only one compensation payment has been made by my Department to military personnel as a result of injuries sustained while participating in the Royal Tournament in the last five years.

TREASURY

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which current powers of the Bank of England to make regulations, inspect or supervise, control credit limits and permit companies to operate as banks in the United Kingdom would, in the event of full adherence to monetary union, be within the authority of or subject to limits set by the European Central Bank. [55691]

  Ms Hewitt
  The responsibilities of central banks in Stage Three of economic and monetary union are described in Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty and in the ESCB Statute (Protocol No. 3 to the Treaty). If the UK joined EMU, national legislation, including the statutes of the Bank of England, would have to be made compatible with the Treaty and the Statute.

  In the UK, responsibility for the authorisation and supervision of banks was transferred from the Bank of England to the Financial Services Authority by the Bank of England Act 1998. The Treaty does not assign to the ECB a direct role in the prudential supervision of credit institutions which remains primarily the responsibility of individual Member States. Any extension of the ECB' s role in this area would require the unanimous approval of all Member States under Article 105(6) of the Treaty.

  Were the UK to join the single currency, UK banks' holdings of minimum reserves with the Bank of England would need to be compatible with the requirements imposed by the ECB under Article 19 of the ESCB Statute at that time.
  1112

  European Community Budgets
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of the Transfer of Appropriations No. 16/98 Non Compulsory Expenditure (SEC 1998) 1062 final concerning Section III (Commission Parts A and B), agreed by the Council of Finance Ministers, what are the sums transferred in sterling, the former purpose of those sums and the purposes to which those sums will now be devoted; at which meeting of the ECOFIN Council such transfers were agreed, and which Treasury Minister was present; and if the Government will request the President of the Council when conveying such approval in future to include the original purpose and new purpose to which sums are being devoted in all public documents related thereto. [55694]

  Ms Hewitt
  This transfers concerns 450,000 ecus (£300,040 at the rate of £1 = 1.4998 ecu which is set for UK VAT and Fourth Resource contributions to the 1998 European Community Budget). This sum is to be transferred from the reserve budget to the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union. Further details will be found in an explanatory memorandum which is being submitted by HM Treasury to the Select Committee on European Legislation. As a rule, the Council adopts its position on transfer proposals at the first convenient Council meeting following consideration in the Council's Committee of Permanent Representatives. This may not necessarily be a meeting of ECOFIN. Generally speaking, the President of the Council, in conveying approval to a transfer, refers to the original and new purpose to which sums are being devoted.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what means transfers of appropriation from one purpose to another within the budget of the European Community are authorised and published; where the public may obtain information concerning such changes and the amounts involved; and if he will list those approved so far in the current financial year, together with details for each. [55692]

  Ms Hewitt
  The European Commission may make proposals to the budgetary authority (the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament) for the transfer of appropriations between chapters of each EC budget section. In the case of transfers relating to expenditure resulting from Treaties (compulsory expenditure), it is the Council, after consulting the European Parliament, which decides whether or not to approve the Commission's proposal. In the case of transfers relating to other expenditure (non-compulsory expenditure) the roles of the Council and the European Parliament are reversed. The full procedure is set out in Article 26 of the EC's Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977, a copy of which will be placed in the Commons Library. The following list details of transfers that have been proposed so far this year. All transfer proposals are subject to Parliamentary scrutiny, however, and further details may be found in the relevant explanatory memorandum or FCO cover note submitted on each transfer proposal to the Select Committee on European Legislation by the Treasury.
  1113
  Members of the public may obtain information on transfers from the published reports of the Select Committee on the European Legislation or directly from the offices of the European Commission.

  EC Budget 1998: Transfers

  Amount (million ecu)

  Transfer no.

  Date of proposal

  Document no.

  Commitments

  Payments

  Subject

  Transfer from

  1

  29 January 1998

  SEC(1998)153

  23.1

  17.1

  Information and communication

  Reserve

  2

  20 May 1998

  SEC(1998)888

  8

  7

  Information and communication

  Reserve

  3

  25 February 1998

  SEC(1998)347

  0.171

  Economic and Social Committee/Committee of the Regions

  Reserve

  4

  1 April 1998

  SEC(1998)560

  45

  38

  Assistance to economic reform and recovery in the New Independent States and Mongolia

  Reserve

  5

  2 April 1998

  SEC(1998)572

  94

  0

  Measures to accompany the reforms to the economic and social structures in the Mediterranean non-member countries

  Reserve

  6

  29 May 1998

  SEC(1998)923

  30

  24

  Yugoslavia

  Reserve

  7

  20 May 1998

  SEC(1998)908

  10.1

  6.55

  EU co-operation with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the New Independent States

  Reserve

  8

  14 May 1998

  SEC(1998)811

  245.5

  Loan Guarantee Fund

  Loan Guarantee Reserve

  9

  13 May 1998

  SEC(1998)809

  0.7

  0.5

  European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

  Reserve

  2

  Drugs Agency

  10

  19 June 1998

  SEC(1998)883

  2

  Administration

  Reserve

  11

  3 June 1998

  SEC(1998)948

  4.4

  Economic and Social Committee/Committee of the Regions

  Reserve

  12

  4 June 1998

  SEC(1998)947

  2.195

  European Court of Justice

  Reserve

  13

  11 June 1998

  SEC(1998)1022

  4

  3

  Justice & Home affairs

  Reserve

  14

  10 June 1998

  SEC(1998)1023

  15

  15

  Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation

  Reserve

  15

  19 June 1998

  SEC(1998)1056

  0

  3.25

  International Fisheries Agreements

  Reserve

  16

  19 June 1998

  SEC(1998)1962

  0.45

  Management of resources

  Reserve

  17

  19 June 1998

  SEC(1998)1063

  1

  0.5

  Safety at work

  Reserve

  18

  26 June 1998

  SEC(1998)1101

  5.59

  13.58

  Staff and administrative expenditure of EC delegations

  19

  5 August 1998

  SEC(1998)1363

  3.8

  Disarmament and prevention of conflicts

  Financial protocols with Malta and Cyprus

  20

  23 June 1998

  SEC(1998)1229

  50

  50

  Contribution to European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for Chernobyl Shelter fund

  Reserve

  21

  25 June 1998

  SEC(1998)1230

  11

  0

  Energy policy

  Reserve

  22

  16 September 1998

  SEC(1998)1407

  2.4 (non-difference)

  Postal charges and telecommunications

  Reserve

  23

  10 July 1998

  SEC(1998)1231

  0.26

  Interinstitutional co-operation

  Staff in active employment

  24

  15 July 1998

  SEC(1998)1262

  150

  100

  Humanitarian aid

  Emergency aid reserve

  25

  9 September 1998

  SEC(1998)1525

  3

  2

  New Transatlantic agenda

  Reserve

  26

  9 September 1998

  SEC(1998)1498

  1.1 (non-difference)

  Operation of radio and television studios and audiovisual equipment

  Reserve

  1114 1115

  EC Budget 1998: Transfers

  Amount (million ecu)

  Transfer no.

  Date of proposal

  Document no.

  Commitments

  Payments

  Subject

  Transfer from

  27

  9 September 1998

  SEC(1998)1513

  0

  8

  Support for democracy in central and eastern Europe

  Co-operation with the republics formerly part of Yugoslavia

  28

  16 September 1998

  SEC(1998)1544

  0

  810

  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section (Arable crops, sugar, sheepmeat and goatmeat, refunds on certain goods obtained by processing agricultural products)

  EAGGF Guarantee Section (Fruit and vegetables vine products, milk and milk products, beef/veal, pigmeat, other measures)

  29

  11 September 1998

  SEC(1998)1528

  0.95 (non-difference)

  Court of Justice—movable property and associated costs

  Provisional appropriations

  30

  28 September 1998

  SEC(1998)1616

  5 (non-difference)

  Publishing

  Reserve

  31

  18 September 1998

  SEC(1998)1552

  0.4 (non-difference)

  Meetings of the Committee of the Regions (COR)

  COR joint interpreting service, publications, basic salaries, family and expatriation allowances

  Euro
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if euro notes and coinage, irrespective of the issuing national central bank, will be legal tender in all member states of the European Union. [55680]

  Ms Hewitt
  In EMU, all euro bank notes issued by the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of participating member states will be legal tender in all member states which participate in EMU. Similarly, all euro coins issued by participating member states and complying with the denominations and technical specifications adopted by the Council in accordance with Article 105a(2) of the Treaty, will be legal tender in the participating member states.

  Registration Records
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps he plans to take to improve access to registration records; [55666]

  (2) what plans he has to reform the system of access to civil registration records; and if he will make a statement. [55667]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Registration Acts are quite specific as to the means of access to all the records of births, deaths and marriages. The Acts allow members of the public to search the indexes in order to identify the entries they are looking for and to obtain certified copies (certificates) on payment of the appropriate statutory fees. The Registrar General has no powers to make available or disclose registration information in any other way,

  It is widely acknowledged that the present arrangements, whereby there is no right to browse through individual records and extract information, are unnecessarily restrictive. The Registrar General is reconsidering the proposals in the 1990 White Paper "Registration: proposals
  1116
  for change" (Cm 939) about access to registration records. He is preparing an options paper for the Government to consider. This should be ready by the end of the year.

  Pre-Budget Report
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to publish the pre-Budget report. [56231]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  On 3 November.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the extent of blending of deep-mined and open-cast coal at power stations. [49261]

  Mr. Battle
  The mix of deep-mined and open-cast used in power stations is a commercial matter for each private sector generator.

  The open-cast mining of coal itself is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will place in the Library copies of correspondence her Department has received in the last six months from the European Commission concerning the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive as it affects the offshore oil and gas industry. [50633]

  Mr. Battle
  The correspondence referred to is regarded as confidential by both the Commission and the Department. It forms part of a negotiation over complex
  1117
  issues, and it may harm the chances of reaching a satisfactory outcome to the negotiations if the position of either party is made public.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list inward investments in the UK manufacturing sector over £1 million in each of the last three years, indicating the nation from which the investment came, the area of the United Kingdom in which it was made, and the grants made by the Government in respect of each investment; and if he will list those investments which have fallen short of the amount indicated to the Government by 30 September or as much of such information as is readily available to him. [55497]

  Company

  Country of Origin

  Grant Offered (£000)

  Area

  1995–96

  Bi-Link Metal Specialities (UK) Ltd.

  USA

  1,500

  Scotland

  Motorola Ltd.

  USA

  7,000

  Scotland

  Delta Textiles (London) Ltd.

  Israel

  350

  Scotland

  Barr & Stroud Ltd.

  France

  2,795

  Scotland

  Forbo-Nairn Ltd.

  Switzerland

  2,700

  Scotland

  Lexmark International Inc.

  USA

  8,500

  Scotland

  Shin-Etsu Handotai Europe Ltd.

  Japan

  4,000

  Scotland

  Bray Valves & Controls (UK) Ltd.

  USA

  550

  Scotland

  H. J. Heinz Co. Ltd.

  USA

  990

  London

  Chartex International PLC

  USA

  480

  London

  Printpack Europe Ltd.

  USA

  400

  Merseyside

  Mackie Automotive Systems (UK) Ltd.

  Canada

  750

  Merseyside

  Freudenberg Technical Products LP

  Germany

  940

  North East

  Neyr Plastiques

  France

  950

  North East

  Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty)

  USA

  415

  North East

  Valeo Security Systems Ltd.

  France

  600

  North East

  Schur Flexible UK Ltd.

  Denmark

  400

  North East

  TRW Automotive Systems Ltd.

  USA

  2,100

  North East

  Siemens PLC

  Germany

  24,985

  North East

  Edbro PLC

  France

  225

  North West

  Bayex Ltd.

  France

  500

  North West

  Photronics (UK) Ltd.

  USA

  1,800

  North West

  Cohnen GBR

  Germany

  245

  South East

  Nortel Ltd.

  Canada

  5,000

  South West

  AVX Ltd.

  Japan

  825

  South West

  Pall Europe Ltd.

  USA

  950

  South West

  Rotometrics International Ltd.

  USA

  500

  West Midlands

  Callow & Maddox Bros. Ltd.

  USA

  900

  West Midlands

  Magneti Marelli UK Ltd.

  Italy

  3,500

  West Midlands

  Metabrasive Ltd.

  France

  700

  West Midlands

  Ishida (Europe) Ltd.

  Japan

  950

  West Midlands

  Coveton (Manuf) Ltd.

  Germany

  65

  West Midlands

  Rockwell Light Vehicle Sysm (UK) Ltd.

  USA

  740

  West Midlands

  GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd.

  USA

  7,000

  Wales

  Nippon Electric Glass (UK) Ltd.

  Japan

  4,500

  Wales

  Flextronics International Ltd.

  Singapore

  1,000

  Wales

  Nimbus Manuf (UK) Ltd.

  USA

  590

  Wales

  ITT Automotive UK Ltd.

  USA

  3,100

  Wales

  Owens Corning Fiberglas (GB) Ltd.

  USA

  800

  Wales

  Lemforder Nacam Ltd.

  Germany

  500

  Wales

  Big Batteries Ltd.

  USA

  1,700

  Wales

  BP Oil Llandarcy Refinery Ltd.

  Belgium

  1,000

  Wales

  Speywood Biopharm Ltd.

  France

  260

  Wales

  Diaplastics (UK) Ltd.

  Japan

  1,000

  Wales

  NMC (UK) Ltd.

  Belgium

  120

  Wales

  Ford Motor Co. Ltd.

  USA

  354

  Wales

  Hoya Lens UK Ltd.

  Japan

  1,800

  Wales

  Tap Manuf Ltd.

  Japan

  1,500

  Wales

  Hitachi Home Electronics Europe Ltd.

  Japan

  2,000

  Wales

  1118
  Mrs. Roche
  Comprehensive information on all the financial packages available to inward investors is not held centrally and to provide a detailed list would involve disproportionate costs. However, a list of internationally mobile inward investors in the manufacturing sector whose investment was greater than £1 million and who were offered regional selective assistance, or in Northern Ireland selective financial assistance, and where some payment of grant has been made, is as follows. There will, of course, have been many other inward investment projects in the manufacturing sector which did not receive regional selective assistance.

  Projects may be revised for a variety of reasons and the amount of grant, which is paid in stages against progress on capital investment and jobs, may be varied accordingly. The majority of projects receiving offers over the last three years are still in progress. Details of any changes are commercially confidential unless they involve public announcements of complete closure.
  1119

  Company

  Country of Origin

  Grant Offered (£000)

  Area

  Renner Powder Metallurgy Ltd.

  Germany

  340

  York/Humb

  Polycarb Ltd.

  Israel

  960

  York/Humb

  Short Brothers PLC

  Canada

  5,000

  Northern Ireland

  Short Brothers PLC

  Canada

  1,295

  Northern Ireland

  Delwyn Enterprises Ltd.

  France

  282

  Northern Ireland

  Fujitsu Telecom Europe Ltd.

  Japan

  2,950

  Northern Ireland

  Coca-Cola Brothers (Ulster) Ltd.

  Luxembourg

  400

  Northern Ireland

  Aldiscon (NI) Ltd.

  Republic of Ireland

  678

  Northern Ireland

  Burnside Hydraulic Cylinders Ltd.

  Republic of Ireland

  1,033

  Northern Ireland

  Webtech (NI) Ltd.

  Republic of Ireland

  480

  Northern Ireland

  Europa Tool Co. Ltd.

  South Korea

  3,210

  Northern Ireland

  Baker Hughes Ltd.

  USA

  1,841

  Northern Ireland

  BCO Technologies (NI) Ltd.

  USA

  7,307

  Northern Ireland

  Copeland Ltd.

  USA

  11,111

  Northern Ireland

  Nacco Materials Handling (NI) Ltd.

  USA

  3,300

  Northern Ireland

  Plastofilm Ltd.

  USA

  948

  Northern Ireland

  Regal Processors Ltd.

  USA

  962

  Northern Ireland

  Seagate Technology (Ireland)

  USA

  10,407

  Northern Ireland

  Stream International (NI) Ltd.

  USA

  5,375

  Northern Ireland

  1996–97

  Wedco Technology UK Ltd.

  USA

  100

  East Midlands

  Organon Laboratories Ltd.

  Netherlands

  2,500

  Scotland

  Chunghwa Picture Tubes (UK) Ltd.

  Taiwan

  55,000

  Scotland

  Alcan Aluminium UK Ltd.

  Canada

  550

  Scotland

  Simple Technology Inc.

  USA

  1,700

  Scotland

  Tenma (UK) Ltd.

  Japan

  1,000

  Scotland

  Monsanto PLC

  USA

  1,428

  Scotland

  SCI Holdings Inc.

  USA

  4,800

  Scotland

  Nikon Precision Europe GMBH

  Japan

  250

  Scotland

  Award PLC

  USA

  2,000

  Scotland

  Lite-on Technology (UK) Ltd.

  Taiwan

  5,500

  Scotland

  Smart Modular Technologies

  USA

  3,000

  Scotland

  Roche Products Ltd.

  Switzerland

  6,000

  Scotland

  Instrument Specialties Europe Ltd.

  USA

  600

  Scotland

  ABB Vetco Gray UK Ltd.

  Switzerland

  700

  Scotland

  ABB Wylex Production & Development

  Switzerland

  630

  Scotland

  Polaroid (UK) Ltd.

  USA

  2,000

  Scotland

  IBM UK Ltd.

  USA

  200

  Scotland

  Norton Healthcare Ltd.

  USA

  990

  London

  Dong Jin Precision UK Ltd.

  South Korea

  950

  North East

  Simula Automotive Safety Devices Ltd.

  USA

  890

  North East

  TSL Group PLC

  France

  125

  North East

  Mono Containers Ltd.

  Kuwait

  500

  North East

  Hydro Aluminium Century Ltd.

  Norway

  950

  North East

  Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd.

  USA

  500

  North East

  Elring Klinger GB Ltd.

  Germany

  350

  North East

  Dresser UK Ltd.

  USA

  2,500

  North East

  Du Pont (UK) Ltd.

  USA

  2,000

  North East

  Bristol-Myers Squibb

  USA

  750

  North West

  Stralfors PLC

  Sweden

  750

  South West

  Toshiba Consumer Products (UK) Ltd.

  Japan

  240

  South West

  Harman International Industries Ltd.

  USA

  950

  South West

  Gleason Works Ltd.

  USA

  950

  South West

  Rittal-CSM Ltd.

  Germany

  500

  South West

  Lucas Control Systems Products

  USA

  200

  South West

  Jaguar Cars Ltd.

  USA

  40,000

  West Midlands

  Huf UK Ltd.

  Germany

  150

  West Midlands

  Mann & Hummel (UK) Ltd.

  Germany

  1,700

  West Midlands

  Webasto Holdings Ltd.

  Germany

  500

  West Midlands

  Denso Sales (UK) Ltd.

  Japan

  80

  West Midlands

  Ford Motor Co. Ltd.

  USA

  10,000

  Wales

  Newport Waferfab Ltd.

  Hong Kong

  7,000

  Wales

  Northern Automotive Systems Ltd.

  USA

  1,500

  Wales

  JCB Transmissions Ltd.

  Netherlands

  3,150

  Wales

  Halla Euro Enterprise Ltd.

  South Korea

  5,000

  Wales

  Bos Automotive Products UK

  Germany

  500

  Wales

  3M UK PLC

  USA

  1,750

  Wales

  Punch Precision Ltd.

  Belgium

  180

  Wales

  Showa (UK) Ltd.

  Japan

  3,000

  Wales

  Kyushu Matshushita Electric (UK) Ltd.

  Japan

  1,000

  Wales

  Hoover Ltd.

  Italy

  800

  Wales

  Alberto-Culver Co. (UK) Ltd.

  USA

  600

  Wales

  1120 1121

  Company

  Country of Origin

  Grant Offered (£000)

  Area

  Fiamm UK Ltd.

  Italy

  3,000

  Wales

  Brite Sparks Ltd.

  Switzerland

  850

  Wales

  Walbro Automotive Ltd.

  USA

  850

  Wales

  Sony UK Ltd.

  Japan

  7,000

  Wales

  Aero-Motive (UK) Ltd.

  USA

  400

  Wales

  R-Tek Ltd.

  Japan

  500

  Wales

  Toyo Seal Industrial Co. Ltd.

  Japan

  240

  Wales

  Bertrand Faure Seating Ltd.

  France

  4,500

  Wales

  Align-Rite Ltd.

  USA

  1,680

  Wales

  Viskase UK Ltd.

  USA

  250

  Wales

  Faun Municipal Vehicles Ltd.

  Germany

  950

  Wales

  Sei Interconnect Products (UK) Ltd.

  Japan

  450

  Wales

  Bericap UK Ltd.

  Germany

  450

  York/Humb

  Luk (UK) Ltd.

  Germany

  940

  York/Humb

  Koyo Bearings (Europe) Ltd.

  Japan

  900

  York/Humb

  K & L Microwave

  USA

  200

  York/Humb

  Portola Packaging Ltd.

  USA

  900

  York/Humb

  Thrige Scott Ltd.

  Denmark

  460

  Northern Ireland

  Glen Electric Ltd.

  Republic of Ireland

  1,380

  Northern Ireland

  Irish Fertiliser Industries Ltd.

  Republic of Ireland

  4,400

  Northern Ireland

  Octopus Sportswear Manufacturing Ltd.

  Republic of Ireland

  975

  Northern Ireland

  Pharmaflex Ltd.

  Republic of Ireland

  370

  Northern Ireland

  Colorite Europe Ltd.

  USA

  1,146

  Northern Ireland

  Cynamid of GB Ltd.

  USA

  3,526

  Northern Ireland

  FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd.

  USA

  36,405

  Northern Ireland

  Ford Motor Co. Ltd.

  USA

  4,571

  Northern Ireland

  Gallaher Ltd.

  USA

  9,957

  Northern Ireland

  Liberty Information Technology

  USA

  837

  Northern Ireland

  Moy Park Ltd.

  USA

  8,112

  Northern Ireland

  Seagate Media Technology

  USA

  24,245

  Northern Ireland

  AVX Ltd.

  USA/Japan

  8,000

  Northern Ireland

  1997–98

  Alcan Aluminium UK Ltd.

  Canada

  6,000

  Scotland

  Avex Electronics Ltd.

  USA

  990

  Scotland

  Eaton Shared Services Ltd.

  USA

  900

  Scotland

  Honeywell Control Systems Ltd.

  USA

  250

  Scotland

  Carron Phoenix Ltd.

  Switzerland

  250

  Scotland

  Primaflex Ltd.

  Germany

  300

  Scotland

  Knowsley Plastics Ltd.

  Republic of Ireland

  600

  Merseyside

  MTK Holdings SA

  Switzerland

  750

  North East

  Vauxhall Motors Ltd.

  USA

  10,000

  North West

  Bott Ltd.

  Germany

  350

  South West

  Rover Group Ltd.

  Germany

  22,500

  West Midlands

  Nordam Europe Ltd.

  USA

  2,350

  Wales

  Alert Packaging Ltd.

  Republic of Ireland

  210

  Wales

  LG Group Ltd.

  Korea

  69,500

  Wales

  Yajima (UK) Ltd.

  Japan

  1,000

  Wales

  Tomoe Tritec Ltd.

  Japan

  600

  Wales

  Friction Dynamics Ltd.

  USA

  1,410

  Wales

  Triten International Ltd.

  USA

  300

  York/Humb

  Sematic UK Ltd.

  Italy

  400

  York/Humb

  Nortel PLC

  Canada

  3,500

  Northern Ireland

  Nortel PLC

  Canada

  600

  Northern Ireland

  Short Brothers PLC

  Canada

  19,507

  Northern Ireland

  Michelin Tyre PLC

  France

  2,500

  Northern Ireland

  Huco Lightronic NI Ltd.

  Germany

  229

  Northern Ireland

  Ryobi Aluminium Casting (UK) Ltd.

  Japan

  2,803

  Northern Ireland

  Webtech (NI) Ltd.

  Republic of Ireland

  615

  Northern Ireland

  Humax Electronics Ltd.

  South Korea

  1,226

  Northern Ireland

  Du Pont (UK) Ltd.

  USA

  12,300

  Northern Ireland

  Information Management Resources Ltd.

  USA

  1,944

  Northern Ireland

  Seagate Technology (Ireland)

  USA

  39,375

  Northern Ireland

  Euro
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government are taking to help companies to redenominate share capital to prepare for the euro. [55989]
  1122
  Mr. Mandelson
  I am very keen to play a full part in helping UK business prepare for the euro. The DTI's consultation "The Euro: Redenomination of Share Capital" showed that companies are starting to consider whether to redenominate their share capital as the euro
  1123
  becomes widely-used in Europe. Existing Companies Act 1985 procedures for the reorganisation of share capital are not specifically designed for redenomination of shares, and can place an unnecessary burden on companies in terms of cost, and the requirement for formal court approval to any reduction in share capital.

  I propose to seek amendments to the Companies Act 1985 to provide a specific mechanism for companies to use in redenominating their share capital. The new mechanism would permit companies to resolve that references in any document to share capital denominated in one currency would be to the equivalent amount in euro (or another currency). A resolution of each class of shareholders would be required (although a resolution of the board would suffice where the company was redenominating into euro during any transitional period to membership of the single currency).

  The new mechanism would also permit companies to adjust the resulting nominal or par values of the shares to a more convenient figure in euro (or other currency), subject to shareholder approval and without the need for court approval. There would be no requirement for companies to issue new share certificates following redenomination.

  The second part of my proposal relates to the requirement in section 118 of the Companies Act 1985 that public companies should have a minimum amount of authorised and issued share capital of £50,000. Currently the Act requires this amount to be denominated in sterling, although companies can and do issue share capital in other currencies, over and above the minimum amount. Companies have told this Department that they favour having the flexibility to denominate the whole of their share capital—including the minimum amount—in a foreign currency; and I propose to seek an amendment to the Companies Act 1985 to allow them to do so.

  In preparing the new legislation the DTI will issue a further consultation document in the new year with the detailed proposals for change.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish an updated list of Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet. [55929]

  The Prime Minister
  An updated list of the names and membership of the Ministerial Committees which I have established to date is as follows. In addition to the members listed, other Members are invited to attend meetings as and when business requires:

  Ministerial Committee on Economic Affairs (EA)

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Chair)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  1124

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest. The Chief Scientific Adviser attends for issues relating to science and technology.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider issues relating to the Government's economic policies".

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on Energy Policy (EA(N))

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Chair)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Paymaster General, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider the principles and objectives which should underlie the United Kingdom's energy strategy; and make recommendations for an energy strategy to the Ministerial Committee on Economic Affairs".

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on Welfare to Work (EA(WW))

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Chair)

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Paymaster General, Treasury

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  Terms of Reference
  "To develop polices to get people from welfare to work and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Economic Affairs (EA)".
  1125
  Ministerial Committee on Public Services and Public Expenditure (PSX)

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Chair)

  Lord Chancellor

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  Leader of the House of Lords and Minister for Women (appointed as Lord Privy Seal)

  Chief Secretary, Treasury Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for matters in which they have a departmental interest.

  Terms of Reference
  "To monitor progress against public service agreements, to review public expenditure allocations and make recommendations to the Cabinet."

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Chair)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of Transport

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  The Secretary of State for Social Security and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment also receive papers. They and other Ministers are invited to attend as necessary. The Chief Scientific Adviser attends for issues relating to science and technology.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider environmental policies and to co-ordinate those on sustainable development".

  Ministerial Committee on Local Government (GL)

  Composition

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Chair)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Lord Chancellor

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  1126

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of Transport

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider issues affecting local government, including the annual allocation of resources".

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on London (GL(L))

  Composition

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Chair)

  Paymaster General, Treasury

  Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Minister of State, Department of Health

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office

  Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Culture, Media and Sport

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  Terms of Reference
  "To co-ordinate the Government's polices on London, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Local Government (GL) and the Ministerial Committee on Devolution Policy (DP)".

  Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs (HS)

  Composition

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Chair)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Lord Chancellor

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Leader of the House of Lords and Minister for Women (appointed as Lord Privy Seal)

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  1127

  Minister of Transport

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  The Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate and the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms also receive papers. They and others are invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider issues of home and social policy".

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on Health Strategy (HS(H))

  Composition

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Chair)

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Minister of State, Department of Health

  Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Economic Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  The Chief Medical Officer is in attendance.

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  Terms of Reference
  "To oversee the development, implementation and monitoring of the Government's health strategy; to co-ordinate the Government's policies on United Kingdom-wide issues affecting health; and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs (HS)".

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on Drug Misuse (HS(D))

  Composition

  Minister for the Cabinet Office (Chair)

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Solicitor-General

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State, Ministry of Defence

  Minister of State, Department of Health

  Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions also receives papers and may be invited to attend as appropriate.

  1128
  Terms of Reference
  "To co-ordinate the Government's national and international policies for tackling drugs misuse, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs (HS)".

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on Women's Issues (HS(W)) Composition

  Leader of the House of Lords and Minister for Women (appointed as Lord Privy Seal) (Chair)

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Department of Health

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Economic Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Terms of Reference
  "To review and develop the Government's policy and strategy on issues of special concern to women; to oversee their implementation; and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs (HS)".

  Ministerial Committee on The Queen's Speeches and Future Legislation (QFL) Composition

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Chair)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Lord Chancellor

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  Leader of the House of Lords and Minister for Women (appointed by Lord Privy Seal)

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Attorney-General

  Lord Advocate

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms

  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is invited to attend for discussions of The Queen's Speeches

  Terms of Reference
  "To prepare and submit to the Cabinet drafts of The Queen's Speeches to Parliament and proposals for the Government's legislative programme".

  Ministerial Committee on Legislation (LEG)
  Composition

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Chair)

  Lord Chancellor

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  1129

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Leader of the House of Lords and Minister for Women (appointed as Lord Privy Seal)

  Attorney-General

  Lord Advocate

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office

  Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland also receives papers and is invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of Reference
  "To examine all draft Bills; to consider the parliamentary handling of Government Bills, European Community documents and Private Members' business, and such other related matters as may be necessary; and to keep under review the Government's policy in relation to issues of Parliamentary procedures".

  Ministerial Committee on Constitutional Reform Policy (CRP)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chair)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Lord Chancellor

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Leader of the House of Lords and Minister for Women (appointed as Lord Privy Seal)

  Other Ministers may be invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider strategic issues relating to the Government's constitutional reform policies".

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on Incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights (CRP(EC))

  Composition

  Lord Chancellor (Chair)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for Health

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Leader of the House of Lords and Minister for Women (appointed as Lord Privy Seal)

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  1130

  Attorney-General

  Lord Advocate

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office receives papers.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider policy and other issues arising from the Government's decision to legislate for the incorporation of ECHR in UK law and to promote and oversee progress of the relevant legislation through Parliament and its subsequent implementation, reporting as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Constitutional Reform Policy".

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on Freedom of Information (CRP(FOI))

  Composition

  Lord Chancellor (Chair)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for Health

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Leader of the House of Lords and Minister for Women (appointed as Lord Privy Seal)

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Attorney-General

  Lord Advocate

  Minister of Transport

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider policy and other issues arising from the Government's decision to legislate on freedom of information; to promote and oversee progress of the relevant legislation through Parliament and its subsequent implementation; and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Constitutional Reform Policy".

  Ministerial Sub-committee on House of Lords Reform (CRP(HL))

  Composition

  Lord Chancellor (Chair)

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  Leader of the House of Lords and Minister for Women (appointed as Lord Privy Seal)

  Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Other Ministers are invited to attend as necessary.

  1131
  Terms of Reference
  "To consider policy and other issues arising from the Government's plans for reform of the House of Lords and to make recommendations to the Ministerial Committee on Constitutional Reform Policy".

  Ministerial Committee on Devolution Policy (DP)

  Composition

  Lord Chancellor (Chair)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Leader of the House of Lords and Minister for Women (appointed as Lord Privy Seal)

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms

  Attorney-General

  Lord Advocate

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Other Ministers are invited for items in which they have departmental interest.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider policy and other issues arising from the Government's policies for devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the regions of England and to promote and oversee progress of the relevant legislation through Parliament and its subsequent implementation".

  Joint Consultative Committee with the Liberal Democratic Party (JCC)

  Composition
  The Committee will be chaired by the Prime Minister. Other Ministers and Liberal Democratic spokesmen will be invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider policy issues of joint interest to the Government and the Liberal Democratic Party".

  Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy (DOP) Composition

  Prime Minister (Chair)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  The Chief of the Defence Staff attends as required, as do the Chiefs of Staff when necessary. Others are invited to attend as necessary.

  1132
  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review the Government's defence and overseas policy".

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on European Issues ((E)DOP)

  Composition

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Chair)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Attorney-General

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe

  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office reviews papers

  Other Ministers are invited to attend as the nature of the business requires.

  The United Kingdom's Permanent Representative to the European Union is also in attendance.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider questions relating to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy (DOP)".

  Ministerial Committee on Northern Ireland (IN)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chair)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Terms of Reference
  "To oversee the Government's policy on Northern Ireland issues and relations with the Republic of Ireland on these matters".

  Ministerial Committee on the Intelligence Services (CSI)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chair)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review policy on the security and intelligence services".
  1133
  Ministerial Group on Food Safety (MISC 1)

  Composition

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Chair)

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip will also receive papers and may attend as necessary.

  Terms of Reference
  "To co-ordinate Departmental consideration of issues arising from the establishment of a Food Standards Agency and other aspects of food safety, and to make recommendations to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs".

  Ministerial Group on Crime Reduction and Youth Justice (MISC 2)

  Composition

  Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chair)

  Leader of the House of Lords and Minister for Women (appointed as Lord Privy Seal)

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Solicitor-General

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland also receives papers, and may attend or be represented as necessary.

  Terms of Reference
  "To oversee the Government's programme to reduce crime and the reform of youth justice and to make recommendations to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs".

  Ministerial Group on Utility Regulation (MISC 3)

  Composition

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Chair)

  Minister of Transport

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Paymaster General, Treasury

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  1134
  Terms of Reference
  "To oversee an inter-departmental review of regulation of the utility industries, to consider issues arising from the review and to report to the Ministerial Committee on Economic Affairs (EA)".

  Ministerial Group On The Millennium Date Change (MISC 4)

  Composition

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Chair)

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Paymaster General, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Ministry of Defence

  Minister of State, Department of Health

  Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  The Chairman of Action 2000 and the Prime Minister's Adviser on the Year 2000 problem are invited to attend.

  Terms of Reference
  "To drive action in the public and private sector, including the national infrastructure, to prevent damage from the failure of electronic systems related to the Year 2000 date change".

  Ministerial Group on the Restructuring of the European Aerospace and Defence Industry (MISC 5)

  Composition

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Chair)

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Terms of Reference
  "To develop Government policy and co-ordinate related activity in promoting the restructuring of the European aerospace and defence industry".

  Ministerial Group on Biotechnology and Genetic Modification (MISC 6)
  Composition

  Minister for the Cabinet Office (Chair)

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  1135

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Minister of State, Department of Health

  Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  The Chief Scientific Adviser also attends.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider issues relating to biotechnology, in particular those arising from genetic modification".

  Ministerial Group on Better Government (MISC 7)
  Composition

  Minister for the Cabinet Office (Chair)

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  Terms of Reference
  "To develop the Government's programme for improving the quality, coherence and responsiveness of public services and to oversee its implementation".

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to lay the Intelligence and Security Committee's Annual report before Parliament. [56233]

  The Prime Minister
  I am grateful to the Intelligence and Security Committee for their valuable work and their latest annual report. Following consultation with them over matters which could not be published without prejudicing the continuing operation of the intelligence and security agencies, I have today laid the report before Parliament. Copies of the report have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Government will respond formally to the report shortly.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will issue a white paper on the constitutional implications of the Government's policy in respect of economic and monetary union. [54868]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have no plans to do so.
  1136

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give his latest assessment of the timescale for the completion of the Holyrood Parliament Building. [55455]

  Mr. Dewar
  We still expect completion of the Holyrood building project by Autumn 2001.

  Temazepam
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths in Strathclyde resulted from the use of Temazepam in each year since 1994 and in 1998 to date. [55160]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information available is given in the table. The figures cover all deaths in the categories listed where temazepam was recorded as being present at the time of death, either alone or in combination with one or more other drugs. Information for 1998 is not yet available.

  Deaths in the former Strathclyde region involving temazepam

  Year

  Number

  1994

  67

  1995

  52

  1996

  33

  1997

  24

  Underlying cause of death categories included (codes refer to the International Classification of Diseases etc., ninth revision (ICD 9)):
  drug dependence (304), nondependent abuse of drugs (305), accidental poisoning (E850-E858), suicidal poisoning (E950-E952) and poisoning undertermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted (E980-E982).

  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths in Strathclyde resulted from more than one drug including Temazepam in each year since 1992 and in 1998 to date. [55159]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information available is given in the table. The figures cover all deaths in the categories listed where temazepam was recorded as being present at the time of death in combination with one or more other drugs. Improved procedures for recording information about drug-related deaths were introduced in 1994, therefore comparable information is not available for 1992 and 1993. Information for 1998 is not yet available.

  Deaths in the former Strathclyde region involving temazepam in combination with one or more other drugs

  Year

  Number

  1994

  53

  1995

  47

  1996

  31

  1997

  21

  1137
  Underlying cause of death categories included (codes refer to the International Classification of Diseases etc., ninth revision (ICD 9)):
  drug dependence (304), nondependent abuse of drugs (305), accidental poisoning (E850-E858), suicidal poisoning (E950-E952) and poisoning undertermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted (E980-E982).

  Heroin
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths in Strathclyde resulted from the use of heroin in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998 to date. [55161]

  Mr. McLeish
  In both 1996 and 1997 there were 26 deaths in Strathclyde involving heroin. Information for 1998 is not yet available. The figures cover all deaths in the categories listed where heroin was recorded as being present at the time of death, either alone or in combination with one or more other drugs.

  Underlying cause of death categories included (codes refer to the International Classification of Diseases etc., ninth revision (ICD 9)):
  drug dependence (304), nondependent abuse of drugs (305), accidental poisoning (E850—E858), suicidal poisoning (E950—E952) and poisoning undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted (E980—E982).

  Methadone
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths in(a) Scotland and (b) Strathclyde have resulted from the prescribed use of methadone in each year since 1992 and in 1998 to date. [55214]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information is given in the table. The figures cover all deaths in the categories listed where methadone was recorded as being present at the time of death, either alone or in combination with one or more other drugs. Improved procedures for recording information about drug-related deaths were introduced in 1994, therefore comparable information is not available for 1992 and 1993. Information for 1998 is not yet available. It is not possible to identify separately deaths from drugs which have been prescribed.

  Deaths involving methadone in:

  Year

  Scotland

  The former Strathclyde region

  1994

  55

  27

  1995

  58

  34

  1996

  101

  36

  1997

  87

  26

  Underlying cause of death categories included (codes refer to the International Classification of Diseases etc., ninth revision (ICD 9)):
  drug dependence (304), nondependent abuse of drugs (305), accidental poisoning (E850—E858), suicidal poisoning (E950—E952) and poisoning undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted (E980—E982).
  1138

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cytology laboratories in Scotland are sending their cervical smears to other laboratories for interpretation. [55306]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Of the 16 NHS Trusts providing cytology services, three are sending their cervical smears to other laboratories for interpretation. This is primarily due to staff shortages which have now been resolved in two of the laboratories and interpretation of the slides in the laboratories will revert to in-house reading.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will announce the outcome of the annual review of the cold weather payments scheme; and if he will make a statement. [56032]

  Angela Eagle
  Following advice from the Meteorological Office, the annual review of the Cold Weather Payments scheme has now been completed. Amending regulations were laid on 9 October 1998 and will come into force in time for the beginning of the winter period.

  Two of the weather stations used in the scheme last winter have been replaced. The weather station located at Gatwick Airport has now closed and will be replaced by a new one located at Redhill. Waterstein Head, which was introduced into the scheme last winter to represent most of the postcodes on the Isle of Skye, will be replaced by a newly available station located at Lusa which is considered to be more representative. In addition, a number of minor changes have been made to the scheme as a result of postcode changes made by Royal Mail.

  Cold Weather Payments are separate from, and paid in addition to, Winter Fuel Payments which are only paid to pensioners.

  I have written to each of the hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by the changes.

HEALTH

  Accident and Emergency Facilities
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) service and (b) professional disciplines must be available at a 24 hour accident and emergency facility.[55565]

  Mr. Boateng
  Guidance on accident and emergency departments suggests they should be consultant led, with appropriately trained staff and with support and back-up available from appropriate clinical specialties at all times. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  CJD Screening
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the National
  1139
  CJD Surveillance Unit about the screening of appendicectomy and tonsillectomy specimens; and if he will make a statement. [55539]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has received applications from researchers, including the National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit, for anonymised pilot surveys to assess the prevalence in appendices and tonsils removed during routine surgery of the abnormal prion protein associated with new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. These proposals are now the subject of expert scientific review before we make a final decision on funding.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorist Activities
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) civilians and (b) soldiers have been killed as a result of terrorist activities in Northern Ireland in each month over the last five years. [55506]

  Mr. Ingram
  The tables illustrate the number of deaths of civilians and members of security forces over the last five years as a result of the security situation. They include the tragic death earlier this month of RUC Constable Frankie O'Reilly as a result of events at Drumcree.

  Deaths in 1998 up to 16 October

  RUC

  RUCR

  Army

  RIR

  Civilian

  Total

  January

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  7

  February

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  March

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  April

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  May

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  June

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  August

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28

  28

  September

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  October

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  —

  —

  1

  —

  52

  54

  Note:

  All statistics are subject to minor adjustment as further information comes to light.

  Deaths 1997

  RUC

  RUCR

  Army

  RIR

  Civilian

  Total

  January

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  February

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  March

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  April

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  May

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  June

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  4

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  August

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  September

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  October

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  November

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  December

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Total

  3

  1

  1

  —

  17

  22

  1140

  Deaths 1996

  RUC

  RUCR

  Army

  RIR

  Civilian

  Total

  January

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  February

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  March

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  April

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  May

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  June

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  August

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  September

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  October

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  November

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  December

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  —

  1

  —

  14

  15

  Deaths 1995

  RUC

  RUCR

  Army

  RIR

  Civilian

  Total

  January

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  February

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  March

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  April

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  May

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  June

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  August

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  September

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  October

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  November

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  December

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Total

  1

  —

  —

  —

  8

  9

  Deaths 1994

  RUC

  RUCR

  Army

  RIR

  Civilian

  Total

  January

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  February

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  5

  March

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  April

  1

  —

  —

  —

  13

  14

  May

  —

  —

  1

  1

  9

  11

  June

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  11

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  7

  August

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  7

  September

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  October

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  November

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  December

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  3

  —

  1

  2

  56

  62

  RUC—Royal Ulster Constabulary

  RUCR—Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve

  RIR—Royal Irish Regiment

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the number of violent deaths in each month in 1998 in each police division in Northern Ireland attributed to each terrorist organisation in Northern Ireland, indicating the cause of death and whether the victims were army, police or civilian. [53765]

  Mr. Ingram
  Up to 20 October, there have been 54 deaths in Northern Ireland as a direct result of the security situation. Of the 54 deaths, 38 have been
  1141
  attributed to Republicans and the remaining 16 to Loyalists. Twenty-nine of these deaths occurred following the horrific bomb explosion in Omagh. Nineteen were the

  Police Division

  A

  B

  D

  E

  G

  H

  J

  K

  L

  N

  0

  P

  January

  RUC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Civ

  4

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  February

  RUC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Civ

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  March

  RUC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Civ

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  April

  RUC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Civ

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  May

  RUC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Civ

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  June

  RUC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Civ

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  July

  RUC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Civ

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  August

  RUC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Civ

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28

  —

  —

  —

  September

  RUC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Civ

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  October

  RUC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Civ

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  6

  3

  3

  1

  0

  4

  3

  0

  29

  1

  1

  3

  Proscribed Organisations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been convicted of membership of a proscribed organisation in each of the

  Number of people found guilty of membership of, or belonging to a proscribed organisation

  Sentence

  Length of sentence

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Imprisonment

  5 years and under

  12

  13

  4

  2

  6 to 10 years

  10

  6

  2

  2

  Imprisonment (suspended)

  less than 1 year

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 year

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2 years

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3 years

  0

  1

  0

  0

  greater than 3 years

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1142
  the result of fatal gun attacks and 6 were due to other causes,
  for example the deaths of the 3 Quinn children in
  Ballymoney.

  last five years; and what was the punishment received in each case. [55499]

  Mr. Ingram
  A total of 59 persons have been convicted of membership of a proscribed organisation since 1994 as set out in the table:
  1143

  Number of people found guilty of membership of or belonging to a proscribed organisation

  Sentence

  Length of sentence

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Detained Young Offender's Centre

  less than 1 year

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 year

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2 years

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3 years

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4 years

  0

  1

  0

  0

  greater than 4 years

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Detained Young Offender's Centre (suspended)

  less than 1 year

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 year

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2 years

  0

  3

  0

  0

  greater than 2 years

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total found guilty

  22

  26

  6

  4

  For 1998, the figures are available only up to 31 March. During the period 1 January to 31 March, one person was found guilty of membership of a proscribed organisation and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of "five years and under".

  Direct Action Against Drugs
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what advice she has received from the Chief Constable of the RUC on talks between Direct Action Against Drugs and the PIRA. [55143]

  Mr. Ingram
  None. As it is the firm belief of the security forces that Direct Action Against Drugs and the Provisional IRA are the same organisation, it is unlikely that discussions as suggested by the hon. Member's question would have taken place.

  1996

  1997

  Type of Fishery

  Number of Salmon

  Weight (kg)

  Number of Salmon

  Weight (kg)

  Drift Net

  19,958

  56,047

  31,407

  90,453

  Draft Net

  10,586

  27,118

  12,556

  33,069

  Rod

  1,444

  3,951

  1,020

  2,658

  Total

  31,988

  87,116

  44,983

  126,180

  Fraud
  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 DOE (NI) since 1995; and what steps were taken to investigate them. [55575]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Department of the Environment's response is set out as follows:

  Rate Collection Agency(figures are only available for period 1 October 1997–9 October 1998)
  40 cases involving fraudulent claims by members of the public; 10 cases referred to Fraud and Prosecution Branch, DHSS, for further investigation, the remaining 30 were resolved internally by RCA and action taken to stop the fraudulent claims

  Driver Vehicle Testing Agency
  1 case involving the removal of cash from a till in 1997; case proven—further action pending.
  1144

  Salmon
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for each of the Foyle Fisheries Commission areas and the Fisheries Conservancy Board area the number and total weight of(a) salmon and (b) grilse taken by (i) angling and (ii) commercial nets in (1) drift and (2) estuary nets for each of the last five years and for 1985, 1980 and 1975 or as much of such information as is readily available; and if he will provide the same information for fish classed (x) 1 sea winter, (y) 2 sea winter and (z) 3 sea winter fish. [55570]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Such information as is available is contained in the Annual Reports for the Foyle Fisheries Commission and the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland, copies of which are in the Library of the House. The Reports of the Foyle Fisheries Commission for 1996 and 1997 are not yet in the Library and the information available is as follows:

  Road Service

  1995

  Materials stolen from store (£3,000); Police notified, but no action taken. Final formal written warning issued; Employee demoted. Materials recovered.

  1996

  One fraudulent claim for travelling subsistence i.r.o days on which employee failed to attend college; Employee suspended from duty and subsequently dismissed. All monies repaid (£1,700).

  One case of theft of materials from store at Castlenavan Quarry; Police notified; Storeman interviewed and admitted theft; employee suspended but since reinstated in another capacity. Police investigated possible collusion with external supplier, but decided on no further action.

  One case of theft of fee (£2) accompanying application for Orange Badge; Employee suspended from duty. Police notified; Employee successfully prosecuted and dismissed from Civil Service.

  1145

  1997

  One case of failure to produce proceeds (£20) from sale of scrap materials; Police not notified; Employees issued with 'Final Formal Warnings' and required to make restitution.

  Environment and Heritage Service (wef 1 April 1996)
  suspend fraud case involving the misappropriation of grant-aid. Referred to RUC for investigation but no evidence of fraud or deception. The case is still ongoing.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing NI
  >3 suspected cases of fraud-1 proven case of theft from petty cash and member of staff dismissed; 2 cases of suspected fraud still under investigation.

  Construction Service (wef 1 April 1996)
  1 case of suspected patronage of contractor—Internal Audit investigation still ongoing.

  Water Service (wef 1 April 1996)
  Since 1996 the Water Service has undertaken 9 investigations of suspected fraud. The police were involved in 5 of these investigations. Of the 9 investigations carried out fraudulent activity was confirmed in 2—prosecution has taken place in one case and is currently being considered in the case of another—there cases relate to fraudulent activity by Water Service suppliers. The remaining 7 investigations did not find evidence of fraud.
  Four new allegations of fraudulent activity involving staff are currently being investigated.

  Prior Options Study
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the outcome of the prior options study on the superannuating functions in Northern Ireland departments. [56147]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  After consideration of the options for the future delivery of the superannuation functions of Departments of Finance and Personnel, Health and Social Services and Education, I have concluded that, in this case, the Government's aim to achieve best value in public services would be achieved most cost effectively by the application of the management disciplines associated with agencies to the current arrangements, allied to adherence to rigorous targets and benchmarking against best practice in other public and private sector organisations. This solution will contribute to any additional arrangements which the New Northern Ireland Assembly might wish to introduce.

  Government Purchasing Agency
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets were set for the Government Purchasing Agency in 1997–98; what further plans have been prepared by the Agency; and what arrangements have been made for publication for this year's plans. [56148]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As an Executive Agency within the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Government Purchasing Agency provides a professional procurement service to all six Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Office and an increasing number of other public sector bodies.
  1146
  The following key performance targets were set for the Agency in 1997–98:

  To break even in the 1998–99 financial year by balancing Agency income and operating costs.

  To achieve a 6% rate of return on capital employed.

  To increase the number of Agency customers by 10‥.

  To increase the volume of customer business by 10‥.

  To achieve a 70‥ level of satisfaction in the 1997–98 Agency survey of customer organisations.

  To achieve a 70‥ level of satisfaction in the 1997–98 Agency survey of suppliers.

  To increase the ratio of outputs to inputs by 3‥ from the 1996–97 outturn.

  The agency has published its Corporate Plan 1997–2000 and Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The following key performance targets were set for the Agency in 1998–99:

  To break even in the 1998–99 financial year by balancing Agency income and operating costs.

  To achieve a 6‥ rate of return on capital employed.

  To increase the number of Agency customers by 10‥.

  To increase the volume of customer business by 10‥.

  To achieve a 80‥ level of satisfaction in the 1998–99 Agency survey of customer organisations.

  To achieve a 80‥ level of satisfaction in the 1998–99 Agency survey of suppliers.

  To increase the ratio of outputs to inputs by—from the 1997–98 outturn.

  Background information is given in the Agency's Corporation and Business Plans 1998–2001, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Presidential Visit
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the sums expended by Her Majesty's Government in respect of(a) the RUC, (b) the Army, (c) the RAF and (d) the other public bodies in respect of the recent visit by President Clinton. [55496]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The sums expended in relation to the visit of President Clinton were(a) RUC £1,300,000,
  (b) Army and RAF approximately £78,000 and
  (c) approximately £195,000 by other public bodies.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Independent Schools (Nurseries)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the independent schools registered with his Department which admit children of three years old and under have been visited by local social services departments following the invitation of the Registrar of Independent Schools in the last 12 months. [55627]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  One independent school admitting children of three years old and under has been visited by a local Social Services Department following the invitation of the Registrar of Independent Schools in the last 12 months.
  1147
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local social services departments have recommended action to the Registrar of Independent Schools in respect of nurseries attached to independent schools in their area. [55626]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not maintain statistics in the form requested. All information received from Social Services Departments about nursery provision at independent schools is passed to Ofsted's HMI who inspect such schools. Where weaknesses are found in that nursery provision, the Department takes action with the school to ensure that they are remedied.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many independent schools registered with his Department admit children younger than(a) three and (b) two years old. [55628]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There are currently 2,261 independent schools registered in England. 921 admit children under three years old and 161 admit children under two years old.

  Grammar School Ballots
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations his Department has received about the draft Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations; and when he will lay revised regulations before the House. [56031]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A total of 322 responses were received in the Department about the draft regulations which were sent out for consultation on 3 June 1998. Copies of these have been placed in the Library. We have today laid revised draft regulations before the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what consultations he has held with EU foreign Ministers over the ban imposed by the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community on meetings between members of both Cypriot communities on the island; [52383]

  (2) what steps he is taking to encourage the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community to remove his ban on meetings between members of both Cypriot communities on the island; [52388]

  (3) what consultations he has held with Turkey and Greece, as co-guarantor powers, over the ban imposed by the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community on meetings between members of both Cypriot communities on the island. [52389]

  Ms Quin
  [pursuant to the reply, 27 July 1998, c. 45]: Due to an administrative error only the first paragraph of the answer was published. The full answer is as follows.

  We have made clear to Mr. Denktash on numerous occasions that we greatly regret the current suspension on Turkish Cypriot participation in bicommunal activities on Cyprus, and have urged him to lift the current suspension. Bicommunal activities make a valuable contribution to building a foundation of understanding
  1148
  between the two Cypriot communities, which will be essential for the success of a political settlement on the island.

  To encourage this process, the UK was involved in securing the inclusion of UN Security Council Resolution 1178 (1998) of 29 June of an expression of regret for the suspension of bicommunal activities by the Turkish Cypriot leadership and a call to both sides, in particular the Turkish Cypriot side, to facilitate arrangements within which bicommunal contacts can take place uninterrupted and without formalities.

  Our interest in the promotion of bicommunal contacts includes those held outside Cyprus. Sir David Hannay met Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot businessmen of the Brussels Group during his recent visit to Cyprus (20–22 July). He expressed our appreciation and encouragement of the Group's continuing activity.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with his EU partners on all aspects of the EU's relation with Cyprus. 5 mecu of EU funds is available to Cyprus for bicommunal projects. A further 12 mecu is available for projects which would support progress towards a political settlement.

  We use every suitable opportunity to impress upon Greece and Turkey the importance of encouraging Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots to work towards a lasting political settlement through the good offices of the United Nations Secretary-General.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) permanent and (b) temporary posts there are and how many temporary Home Office Immigration Service personnel have been employed at the entry clearance posts in (i) Delhi, (ii) Bombay, (iii) Islamabad (iv) Karachi and (v) Dhaka in (1) May, (2) June and (3) July. [55237]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The information is in the table.

  Delhi

  Bombay

  Islamabad

  Dhaka

  Permanent immigration entry clearance posts

  15

  12

  33.5

  15

  Temporary posts

  May 1998

  7

  8

  5

  0

  June 1998

  6

  7

  8

  0

  July 1998

  5

  3

  7

  0

  Temporary home office staff employed for summer relief

  May 1998

  5

  5

  5

  0

  June 1998

  5

  5

  8

  0

  July 1998

  4

  3

  7

  0

  Home office staff on full postings to permanent posts

  May-July 1998

  7

  6

  17

  6

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on licensing arms exports to Slovenia. [56146]
  1149
  Ms Quin
  We, along with EU partners, have decided, taking into account the well-entrenched democracy in Slovenia and her stable political and economic structures, to remove Slovenia from the EU Common Position on arms exports to the former Yugoslavia. Applications for licenses to export military equipment will be considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29, and the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29, how the criteria for defence exports are used to assess applications for licence to export arms or goods subject to control for strategic reasons, for the purpose of demonstration, trial, testing or evaluation. [56232]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Licence applications to export goods and technology controlled under Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (the 'Military List'), or dual use goods when there are grounds for believing that the end-user of such goods will be the armed forces or internal security forces of the recipient country, are examined on a case-by-case basis against the published defence exports criteria and the EU Code of Conduct.

  When the application is for demonstration, trial, testing or evaluation purposes, attention is paid to the level of control exercised by the exporter and whether the export will be temporary in arriving at a judgment as to whether the equipment might be used for internal repression, international aggression, diverted to an undesirable end-user or otherwise contravene the criteria.

  If a decision is taken to issue such a licence, this in no way fetters our discretion in considering future applications for the export of equipment of the type demonstrated or evaluated. Such applications will be treated on their merits against the prevailing circumstances at that time.

  In some cases, licensees will be informed that, on the information available at that time, a licence would not normally be granted for the permanent export of the same or a greater quantity of the goods concerned to the same end-user, irrespective of the purpose of the intended export.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Alcopops
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the new code of practice on the sale of alcopops; and what measures are in place to continue to monitor the industry's marketing of alcopops. [55184]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We are currently considering the progress made and expect to announce our conclusions in November.
  1150

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made with the proposed freedom of information legislation. [54734]

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for freedom of information legislation. [54719]

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with the freedom of information legislation. [54714]

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to promote open Government. [54738]

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to introduce legislation on freedom of information. [54721]

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made with his Department's open Government initiatives. [54739]

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to bring forward legislation for a Freedom of Information Act. [54724]

  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's current timetable for implementation of freedom of information legislation. [54717]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are committed to the introduction of a Freedom of Information Act as part of their programme for constitutional reform, which aims to modernise British politics and bring Government closer to the people.

  We published our proposals for a Freedom of Information Act in a White Paper "Your Right to Know" in December 1997. We made a commitment in that White Paper to publish a draft Bill for consultation. Work is well in hand on this and it will be published early in the new year.

  Following consultation on the draft Bill and pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee on Public Administration, I intend to introduce the Bill to Parliament as soon as the legislative programme allows.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on plans to introduce a Bill to establish freedom of information. [54736]

  Mr. Straw
  In the period 1 August-9 October, I received 281 representations about the Government's plans for a Freedom of Information Bill. These were generally supportive of our plans, but the majority sought further information about the timetable for the Bill. I have also met my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) to discuss our plans and intend to discuss them further with other interested parties and individuals over the coming weeks.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on how the proposed freedom of information legislation will apply to the Scottish Parliament. [54727]
  1151
  Mr. Straw
  It will be for the Scottish Parliament to determine the approach of the Scottish Executive and other public bodies to openness and freedom of information within areas of devolved competence. Reserved matters would be subject to the proposed United Kingdom Freedom of Information Act.

  Policy Co-ordination
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to make the procedures relating to inter-departmental communication on policy development more transparent. [54726]

  Mr. Straw
  I intend to introduce a Freedom of Information Act which will apply to information held by public authorities. Information on the policy development process will be covered by the Act but, as the White Paper "Your Right to Know" made clear, this information could be withheld if disclosure would cause harm to the decision-making and policy advice processes. The Act will also exclude certain information.

CABINET OFFICE

  Information Technology
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made in achieving the strategic direction of information technology in the Government's service. [54733]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Our developing Information Technology strategy is an important enabler for our Better Government programme.

  The Government Secure Intranet (GSI) launched earlier in the year, is growing rapidly and enabling Government Departments to communicate electronically with each other.

  Currently 12 Departments are connected and we intend that all major departments will be connected over the next year.

  Ministerial Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will take steps to ensure that all Ministers reply to letters from hon. Members within a specific time scale. [54735]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Government attach the greatest importance to the effective handling of correspondence. Challenging targets are set for replying to letters from hon. Members and performance against target is continuously monitored. Departments have recently been reminded of the importance of replying promptly to letters from hon. Members and the Cabinet Office will issue guidance later this month reminding Departments of the correct procedures to be followed when handling ministerial correspondence.

  Better Regulation Initiative
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proposals he has to extend the better regulation initiative. [54737]
  1152
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  As part of the Better Regulation Initiative I am determined to extend good practice at all stages of regulatory work. In August we published new guidance to help Departments to apply the Better Regulation Task Force's principles of good regulation.

  This means that no regulatory proposal which has an impact on businesses, charities and voluntary bodies should be considered by the Government without a thorough assessment of the risks, costs and benefits, a clear analysis of who will be affected and an explanation of why a non-regulatory approach would be insufficient. The Guide replaces the previous Administration's range of guidance on Deregulation, Compliance Cost Assessment and Risk Assessment with a single document.

  The publication of the Guide also heralds the introduction of a more comprehensive system of regulatory reporting to meet the Government's manifesto commitment to monitor the regulatory activity. Every Department is required to publish an account (in the Departmental Report) of their regulatory activity with examples of how they have improved the quality and effectiveness of regulation through the application of the Task Force's principles.

  European Directives
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to co-ordinate Government policy relating to European directives. [54708]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) earlier today,Official Report, column 1264.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat (Sulphonamides)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many slaughtered farm animals in each year since 1990 had sulphonamides present above the maximum permitted levels. [54665]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Veterinary Medicines Directorate is responsible for a large scale random sampling surveillance programme for residues of veterinary medicines in meat. Under the National Surveillance Scheme samples which reflect the supply profile of red meat to the consumer are taken at randomly selected slaughterhouses and on-farm.

  The presence of sulphonamides in cattle, sheep and pigs is specifically monitored using a multi-residue method.
  1153
  Directive 86/469/EEC, which until the end of 1997 prescribed the number of samples tested for each substance, required a greater proportion of pigs to be

  Year

  Cattle

  Greater than MRL

  Sheep

  Greater than MRL

  Pig

  Greater than MRL

  ℅ pigs greater than MRL

  1990

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,210

  61

  5.04

  1991

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,207

  46

  3.81

  1992

  38

  0

  68

  0

  867

  26

  3.00

  1993

  103

  0

  98

  0

  1,193

  19

  1.59

  1994

  111

  1

  139

  0

  1,214

  23

  1.90

  1995

  109

  0

  126

  0

  1,210

  16

  1.32

  1996

  89

  0

  93

  0

  1,107

  18

  1.62

  1997

  77

  1

  80

  0

  1,135

  17

  1.50

  In addition, the microbiological assay (FPT) which is used for the wider surveillance of antimicrobial compounds will identify the presence of sulphonamides in cattle, sheep and pigs where concentrations are well in excess of the permitted levels. The results from this survey are:

  Sulphonamides FPT 1991 to 1997—Great Britain

  Year

  Samples

  Greater than MRL

  1990

  0

  0

  1991

  34,081

  164

  1992

  37,186

  149

  1993

  35,590

  19

  1994

  34,037

  210

  1995

  33,931

  36

  1996

  31,619

  16

  1997

  32,444

  15

  1Pigs

  2(8 pig, 1 cow, 1 goat)

  3(5 pig, 1 cow)

  BSE
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his projections for BSE cases in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland for (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2000, (iv) 2001, (v) 2002 and (vi) 2003. [55494]

  Mr. Rooker
  Predictions of the number of BSE cases in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for 1998, 1999 and 2000 are set out. They are derived from the Veterinary Laboratories Agency's computer model of the epidemic together with additional data provided by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. The model predicts that the epidemic will continue to decline, a finding that is in agreement with published and unpublished findings of Professor Anderson's group at the Wellcome Trust Centre for the Epidemiology of Infectious Disease, University of Oxford.

  Year

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  1998

  2,685–2,891

  20

  1999

  1,223–1,741

  12

  2000

  451–784

  6

  1154
  tested for sulphonamides because they are more often used in the treatment of pigs compared to cattle or sheep. The results are as follows:

  Because the computer model uses data for Great Britain as a whole, it cannot provide separate predictions for England, Scotland and Wales. Supplementary estimates have therefore been made based on the proportional distribution of BSE cases in the three countries in 1997. These are less precise than the national predictions because they do not take into account movements of cattle from one part of Great Britain to another or different rates of decline in the number of BSE cases from region to region.

  Year

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  1998

  2,402–2,586

  84–91

  199–204

  1999

  1,094–1,557

  38–55

  91–129

  2000

  403–701

  14–25

  33–58

  It is not possible to provide estimates with any precision for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 because by this time there will be random, unpredictable effects, particularly arising from cases occurring with long incubation periods.

  The VLA predictions represent 95 per cent. confidence intervals around a central estimate. It is inevitable that future predictions contain elements of uncertainty particularly when historical exposure levels to the BSE agent are not known. Nevertheless, based on information currently available, it is expected that the observed number of confirmed BSE cases for 1998 will prove to be close to the upper end of the predicted range provided above.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for(a) each EU country (b) England, (c) Wales, (d) Scotland and (e) Northern Ireland the number of BSE cases recorded in each of the last three years for which figures are readily available and the figures for this year to the latest available date, indicating for each of the United Kingdom countries the figures for each month of the current year to 30 September. [55495]
  1155
  Mr. Rooker
  Figures for confirmed BSE cases in other EU countries for 1995, 1996, 1997 and to the end of September 1998, supplied to us by the Commission, are given in the following table:

  EU country

  1995

  1996

  1997

  11998

  Belgium

  —

  —

  1

  4

  France

  3

  12

  6

  10

  Germany2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Netherlands

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Portugal

  14

  29

  20

  60

  Republic of Ireland

  16

  73

  77

  46

  1to 30 September 1998

  2Germany has report no homebred cases of BSE

  Equivalent figures for each of the UK countries by year and for 1998 by month, of confirmation are as detailed.
  1156

  Year of confirmation

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  N. Ireland

  Total

  1995

  13,227

  1,474

  750

  170

  15,621

  1996

  7,691

  703

  346

  82

  8,822

  1997

  4,308

  374

  165

  28

  4,875

  January to September 1998

  2,272

  186

  74

  12

  2,544

  Month of confirmation

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  N. Ireland

  Total

  January 1998

  281

  18

  13

  1

  313

  February 1998

  422

  38

  15

  2

  477

  March 1998

  319

  31

  8

  0

  358

  April 1998

  248

  17

  2

  1

  268

  May 1998

  216

  14

  9

  0

  239

  June 1998

  328

  28

  10

  1

  367

  July 1998

  164

  13

  4

  0

  181

  August 1998

  101

  12

  6

  4

  123

  September 1998

  193

  15

  7

  3

  218

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Lord Christopher
Anthony Martin Grosvenor Christopher, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Christopher, of Leckhampton in the County of Gloucestershire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Murray of Epping Forest and the Lord Merlyn-Rees.

National Health Service: Computerisation
2.38 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advice they have taken in connection with further substantial computerisation of the National Health Service to avoid a repetition of past experiences such as in the Wessex Regional Health Authority.
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, we have recently launched a new strategy for information within the NHS. This will provide the NHS with the most modern tools to improve the care and treatment of patients. Developing this strategy has involved extensive consultation with the NHS, professional organisations, suppliers, Her Majesty's Treasury and the NHS Executive. The strategy reflects lessons learned from past experience of poor management and procurement, and the lack of emphasis on supporting clinicians with the information and information systems they need.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving such a detailed reply on this important subject. Is the Minister saying that advice of the highest order has been given on this matter to prevent any oversell, as in the case of the Wessex health authority, to make sure that the computers that are bought will be adequate for the job, and to ensure that we shall get maximum usage out of them and maximum value for money?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his introduction to the document Information for Health stated explicitly that money had been wasted in the past; that procurement procedures had not been what they should have been; and that the whole system had been geared too much to churning out information for management and
1434
accountancy purposes rather than to supporting high quality patient care and ensuring value for money within the NHS. We believe that we now have a strategy that will ensure that we do just that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the document, Information for Health, has not been placed by her department in either the Library of this House or the Printed Paper Office, and that it was not available for reading before Question Time? Is she further aware that Computer Weekly has published a detailed criticism of the department? One of its main points is that the NHS Executive, which has been responsible for the failures referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is to be responsible for spending the £1 billion of new money. What does she have to say about that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, if the document was not available in the Printed Paper Office or the Library, I apologise to the noble Lord. I was not aware of it and I shall certainly look into the matter. The document is available on the NHS website—appropriately perhaps! I will make sure that that is rectified.
On the major point raised by the noble Lord, we have examined the need to change the arrangements within the NHS Executive. The Information Management Group is to be disbanded and we will set up a new, separate special health authority with policy unit and performance management functions. We have made very clear that this is a strategy that has to be developed in co-ordination with other people, not in isolation. We have to take suppliers along with us and understand what can be supplied. Most of all, we have to take the clinical community who need to use this system with us; and we need to evaluate what we are doing. So we have built in some safeguards against the kind of criticisms raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the general view that hospitals would be far more effective if we brought back matrons?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I never knew that my noble friend had so much in common with the right honourable Member in another place on this matter. It is probably one of the few things that they have in common. What is important is not the title we give to the heads of nursing units; it is that nurses have a key leadership role, whether in the new primary care groups, acute units or the work that they do within the community; and that we recognise that they need to be leaders and partners in the high-quality, responsive NHS that we are trying to build.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in the safeguarding mentioned by the Minister have the Government now resolved the problem of patient confidentiality, which has been a major concern within the health service?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, this was one of the issues that Mr. Frank Burns, a chief executive from

1435
the health service, took on board in developing this strategy. The issue was raised by the professional leaderships, for example, the BMA and the Joint College. I was pleased that representatives of both nursing and medical organisations welcomed the strategy, and explicitly welcomed the recognition that problems of patient confidentiality had to be addressed all the way through the implementation of the system. We have the framework right; we need to do more detailed work as each phase comes in.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, as regards the new NHS information strategy, will the Minister detail the proportion of funding that is going towards information systems for patients and carers? In particular will she look closely at the "Start here" signposting system? Finally, in the light of the remarks of the NHS Confederation, will the Minister reassure the House that there will be the management capacity and skills to implement the NHS information strategy in the timescale envisaged?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords. On the general point, this is a 10-year programme; I cannot provide information for the full 10 years on the proportion that will be spent on supporting patient information. It is one of the key roles of the strategy that we use information that helps people both to promote their own good health and to understand ill health better and the services that they are being offered. The noble Lord kindly showed me details of the system to which he alluded. My colleague in another place, Paul Boateng, will examine the system and meet those who developed it. There are many kinds of fascinating and innovative ways to develop means of making information accessible to patients, and this is a very important and potentially useful one.
On the noble Lord's final point, the management capacity is extremely important. If we are to manage this process well, we need to have people who understand it, and specific account is taken of that in the first phase of implementation so that there is support for the people on the ground who will be implementing the strategy.
Lord Rea: My Lords, following the question asked by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, does my noble friend not agree that the very model of a modernising matron should be one who understands how to use a computer and has great need of the information provided thereby?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that a thoroughly modern matron today would regard having information accessible as part of the tools of the trade. Nurses are too precious to spend their time looking for paper records that are lost or chasing test results. The importance of this system is not that we use technology because it is there but because it can support professionals in their day-to-day work and free them for the interface with patients which is particularly important.

Provision of Refuges for Children
2.51 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking any steps to encourage the provision of more refuges for children under 16 under the provisions of Section 51 of the Children Act 1989.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we fully recognise the importance of refuges, which are designed to give a breathing space for young people who run away. Sir William Utting's Children's Safeguards Review drew attention to the importance of refuges and, as part of our consideration of the report, we are looking at the current provision. We shall publish our response to the Utting Report very soon.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that every year approximately 43,000 children under 16 run away from home but that there are at present only three refuges under the provisions of Section 51 of the Children Act 1989? Does she agree that there is an imbalance here which needs addressing?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I recognise that this is a serious problem and that the young people and children to whom the noble Lord refers are extremely vulnerable. We need better services for children who run away, and in that context we should look at the adequacy of refuge provision. I note that the Children's Society is planning to develop more refuges and hoping to secure funding of £1 million from the Millennium Children's Promise for that purpose. However, it is important that we do not focus only on services after children have run away; we must look at the causes of why children—particularly children in care—run away and try to stop it occurring.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many organisations concerned with the welfare of children, including the organisation with which I have been associated, Save the Children, have for some time been concerned about the position of refugee children who have come to this country from societies which have been torn apart by war? What arrangements are made in relation to such children, particularly at the point of entry?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, yes, I am aware of the concerns, particularly with regard to unaccompanied child refugees. This is a matter for which the Government have made funds available to local authorities, but, at a time when there is an increase in the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, we need to look at what we can do and to recognise the problems that some local authorities face in providing care, and funding that care, for those children, particularly in the light of the recent influx of young people from Kosovo. We need to discuss with

1437
colleagues in the Home Office and the DETR ways in which we can ensure that local authorities are able to support these vulnerable children.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that Section 51 of this Act is extremely widely drawn. It simply says, "at risk of harm". Does she agree that that includes children who are at risk of falling into prostitution or suffering other forms of sexual abuse? Is her department co-operating and co-ordinating fully with the Home Office on this point?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we recognise that there are wide-ranging responsibilities for the needs of children who may be vulnerable and at risk from a variety of factors and that in meeting those responsibilities we cannot take a simple departmental approach. That is why the ministerial task force on children's safeguards was a wide-ranging and interdepartmental one, enabling these issues to be looked at across the board, not only with colleagues in social services departments and local authorities but also with colleagues in the Home Office and the police, who have a major role to play in this area.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, will the Government require local authorities to set out in their children's service plans how they will ensure that a service is available to children who are being abused through falling into prostitution and take preventive action to target children who may be vulnerable to abuse in this way?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, when considering children's services in 1996, local authorities were asked to identify within those plans various groups of children, including children who had run away and who might be vulnerable to falling into prostitution or being sexually abused. We hope that extra momentum to that requirement will result from the work done in responding to the Utting Report.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, my noble friend kindly made reference to the £1 million being made available from the Children's Promise campaign. I am most grateful to the very many who are supporting that campaign. As we shall raise £1 million to be disbursed for the benefit of children, may we have the support of the National Health Service in making this known to all who work in that very fine service and understand the work that we are doing?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I believe we all know, my noble friend has done a great deal to make the Children's Promise known to Members of your Lordships' House. I shall certainly consider how we can make it known to people who work within the NHS.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that bricks and mortar will not be enough in the provision of homes and that the quality and training of
1438
staff and their ability to communicate not only with teenagers but with teenagers' parents will be extremely important? In this context, is she aware of the pioneering work of the Caldecott college, to the foundation of which the late Lady Faithfull contributed so much, in the context of working with children in a residential field?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point out that we tend to use the word "refuges" as a shorthand and think of them only in terms of buildings. We know from the experience of people who work in this field and the research that has been done that availability of buildings alone is not the problem. Many of these children ran away from buildings that were provided for them because the people and the services within those buildings were not adequate and sensitive to their needs. I go back to my response to the noble Earl, Lord Russell: we need to look at all the factors that cause children to run away, as well as at the appropriate provision for them when and if that occurs.

Public Utilities: Pensioner Concessions
2.59 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have made any representations to the public utilities about granting financial concessions to old age pensioners.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, no such representations have been made, but the Government are very conscious of the difficulties faced by many pensioners and have taken steps to tackle them. The Government have set up a group of senior Ministers to co-ordinate the Government's strategy for helping older people. We have reduced VAT on fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. We have introduced winter fuel payments. For the coming winter these will give at least £20 to every pensioner household and £50 to those in most need. We have allocated £500 million to enable winter fuel payments to continue for a further three years. We believe that pensioners should share in the prosperity of the nation and that this is the best way to tackle issues such as fuel poverty.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that standing charges are an increasing burden on less well off elderly people and that is why the National Pensioners Convention has persistently called for their abolition in respect of old-age pensioners? Can the Minister explain to the House what is the attitude of the Government on this issue?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as to the question whether pensioners who use prepayment meters are charged too much, gas and electricity regulators have drawn up an action plan to drive down costs and improve efficiency and choice to disadvantaged consumers. That includes action to encourage more cost-effective meters and offer a wider

1439
choice of payment methods. The Government are also concerned that disadvantaged consumers should have a fair share of the benefits of liberalising the markets and are considering the case for further action through the regulatory system, if necessary, to ensure that the benefits are widely shared.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the developing gas and electricity market very considerable advantage can be enjoyed by those who pay by direct debit but that there is very little advantage, if any, for those with prepayment meters rather than bank accounts?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point. Some people have had the benefit of payment by direct debit and in other cases those with prepayment meters have been disadvantaged. But the action that I have explained is related directly to the resolution of that problem and action has already been taken to that end.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House why some insist on referring to these bodies as public utilities? Are they not largely in the private sector and is not their only interest first, middle and bottom line making profits? Why would anyone remotely believe that they would have any interest in the plight of poor people in our society?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, all of them are controlled by regulators who place upon them certain duties. Noble Lords will also be aware that the Government are imposing a new duty on regulators to consider the needs of low income customers.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, despite the current fashion for means-testing and the taxing of benefits, does the noble Lord agree that it would not be appropriate for such concessions as were mentioned in the original Question either to be means tested or taxed?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in this case we are not talking about concessions. In these circumstances no concessions have been asked for. We believe that the way to tackle these problems is by means of the measures that I enumerated not by concessions, for the reason that there is strict regulation of the utilities not to show undue preference to particular groups in setting charges. Any proposals for financial concessions for particular groups are matters for the regulators subject to their duties and the non-discrimination requirements of the legislation. The reason for taking that line is very clear. Any substantial
1440
concessions to pensioners, not all of whom are poor, would have to be paid for by an increase to other consumers some of whom are on low incomes.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the number of deaths through hypothermia in this country is higher than in Sweden? Does he agree that that cannot be climatically explained? Can he tell the House what plans the Government have to reduce this figure?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot comment on the comparison between the two countries. Noble Lords will understand that the Government have introduced a whole series of measures aimed at enabling pensioners to pay bills and there are very strict regulations that govern the disconnection of meters and the turning off of heating arrangements.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether pensioners in London and elsewhere would be well advised to accept the offer of British Gas to become the sole provider of energy to their homesteads?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that it is for the Government to comment on the matter. People must make their own decisions based on the best advice that they can get.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is the Minister aware that not very long ago I received a letter telling me that the Government had decided to give me £20 to help with my winter fuel bills and that that was more than any government had ever made available to pensioners? Does the noble Lord agree that it would have been less misleading to the many millions who doubtless received that letter had it been explained that the kind donor was the taxpayer and not the Government?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Baroness is perhaps misjudging the intelligence of most pensioners. I am sure that they are perfectly capable of understanding that point.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, I am rather disappointed by the reply of the Minister. He has utterly failed to answer the Question. Cannot the Government discuss with the respective regulators what action can be taken to remove these charges, for such a result will certainly be beneficial to the health and well-being of our elderly people?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that I have already covered that point. On the basis of our regulatory system there must be a charging system for these payments. Moves have been made to make certain that the payments are as fair as possible. In the light of that action, I believe that the point has been covered.

House of Lords Restaurants: British Pig Meat
3.6 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked the Chairman of Committees:
Whether pig meat served in House of Lords restaurants is of British origin.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, pig meat served in the House of Lords restaurants is of British origin, except the bacon in the staff restaurant, which is Dutch, and the wild boar, which comes from Hungary and at times from one or two other places. This is not a laughing matter. We do not make much of these matters in your Lordships' House, but it so happens that my arms bear the wild boar.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for his relatively satisfactory Answer, is he aware that the fact that British pork is served in the restaurants is not well known, hence this Question? Will the noble Lord consider ways of publicising it further, such as descriptions on menus, so that Ministers from laggard departments such as the Ministry of Defence may have their consciences pricked and follow our example, as they probably follow that of another place and that great temple of value for money, Marks & Spencer?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the last thing that I contemplated—I did not contemplate it at all—was that in this Question I would be asked about the Ministry of Defence. I can see possible advantages in the Ministry using wild boar on some occasions. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I shall consider whether this can be more widely publicised, because it would be an advantage to do so. I benefit from British pork because almost every day when your Lordships' House sits I enjoy a lunch of beautifully mashed potatoes and two hot sausages in the Home Room. They are delicious and I commend them to the House.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Chairman of Committees aware that, amusing though his answers are, they will not amuse the many pork/bacon farmers who are going bust?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord says. However, important though those matters are, I do not believe that they are domestic matters for the House of Lords.

Northern Ireland Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 43 [Prorogation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 43 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dubs: Rather unusually, I must recommend that noble Lords oppose the Question that this clause stand part of the Bill. Nor do we intend to introduce any amendments to replace it.
Clause 43 concerns the Secretary of State's power to prorogue the Northern Ireland Assembly. The power in the Bill as it stands is unfettered and does not need to be justified, although a draft Order in Council must be approved under the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 43 reflects provisions in earlier Northern Ireland legislation which were briefly used on occasions—for example, in the summer of 1973.
In discussions with the Northern Ireland parties, there was considerable opposition to the kind of emergency powers represented by this clause. We have already debated the powers to call emergency dissolutions and fresh elections. As a result, the Secretary of State's powers in this field have instead been given to the Assembly.
We see the weight in the criticism of such emergency powers: that they are planning for failure and as a result might paradoxically make failure more likely. The Government are not in the business of planning for failure in Northern Ireland. We believe that the progress we have seen over the past year fully justifies this confidence. The Northern Ireland Bill reflects the Belfast agreement: the greatest success in building bridges across the community in the entire history of Northern Ireland. The agreement already provides for a review of its provisions after four years. If circumstances change dramatically, the power of Westminster to make provisions for Northern Ireland remains unaffected by the Bill. But we believe that the Bill provides the firmest foundation for political development over the years ahead and that the kind of powers included in this clause are therefore unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: This is one of a number of clauses in the Bill which the Minister proposes to oppose, having put them before the Committee. However, I realise that that results from the consultations which took place over the summer, in particular with the Northern Ireland parties. Therefore my criticism of the noble Lord opposing his own clauses is muted a great deal.
The Minister describes this power as planning for failure. I do not envisage it in that way. I understand the clause to provide for contingencies, which I believe is a different issue. I should not wish to plan on the basis that the Assembly and all that goes

1443
with it will fail. Far from it; I am optimistic and hope very much that it will succeed. At the same time it seems to me that we should make provision for contingencies if all is not going entirely smoothly. A cooling-off period might be required and could be provided by the prorogation provision in the clause.
However, at this stage I do not wish to go against the results of the consultation which the Minister and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office have had with the Northern Ireland parties. I am prepared to concur with the proposal made by the Minister.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: We, too, have no essential problem with what the Government seek to do. Perhaps I may be clear. The Assembly will be able to prorogue itself, the power having been removed from Her Majesty to do so. Will the Assembly be able to prorogue itself in the event to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred—that all did not go well? If so, for how long? How would that relate to the provision—from these Benches we very much welcome it—that the Assembly will have a fixed term? It is an example that we might well follow in the Westminster Parliament. I should be grateful for an answer on those points.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am reluctant to prolong this part of the debate. However, I had the impression that the clause as it stood did even more damage to what I call the sacred scrolls of the Good Friday agreement. Perhaps it was for that reason that wiser counsels prevailed. I was the recipient on many occasions of such exhortations, even when I was making tremendously significant suggestions that an amendment providing that the "Secretary of State shall" instead of "the Secretary of State may" sent the wrong signals and demoralised all who had subscribed in the referendum to the agreement.
However, I shall not anticipate what I and my colleagues may wish to say with the leave of the Committee on the new clause.
Lord Dubs: The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, is, yes. The Assembly has the power to prorogue. It can control its own sittings and set its own periods of adjournment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Perhaps I may respond briefly to a remark by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, about fixed term parliaments. It is not appropriate to debate the matter on this clause. However, I believe that one of the advantages of the British constitution is that we do not have fixed-term parliaments. It means that our elections are short, which is highly desirable when one considers some comparable countries overseas. It also enables Parliament to resolve a situation where a government have lost the ability to govern; and there are plenty of historic precedents to which one could point.
Clause 43 negatived.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 111:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—

PART IVA
  NSMC, BIC, BIIC ETC.

    NORTH-SOUTH MINISTERIAL COUNCIL AND BRITISH-IRISH COUNCIL
    .—(1) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make such nominations of Ministers as they consider necessary to ensure—

    (a) such participation in the North-South Ministerial Council as appears to them to be required by the Belfast Agreement; and

    (b) such participation in the British-Irish Council as appears to them to be so required.

    (2) It shall be a Ministerial responsibility of a Minister nominated under subsection (1)(a) or (b) to participate in the Council concerned in such meetings or activities as are specified in the nomination.
    (3) Such a Minister shall act in accordance with any decisions of the Assembly or the Executive Committee which are relevant to his participation in the Council concerned.
    (4) A Northern Ireland Minister may in writing authorise another Minister who has been nominated under subsection (1)(a) or (b) to enter into agreements or arrangements in respect of matters for which he is responsible.
    (5) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall, as far in advance of each meeting of either Council as is reasonably practicable, give to the Executive Committee and to the Assembly the following information in relation to the meeting—

    (a) the date;

    (b) the agenda; and

    (c) nominations made under subsection (1) for the purposes of the meeting.

    (6) A Minister who participates in a meeting of either Council by reason of a nomination under this section shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the meeting, make a report—

    (a) to the Executive Committee; and

    (b) to the Assembly.

    (7) A report under subsection (6)(b) shall be made orally unless standing orders authorise it to be made in writing.
    (8) Subsection (3) does not affect the operation of section 19 in relation to the powers of Ministers.
    (9) In this section "participate" shall be construed—

    (a) in relation to the North-South Ministerial Council, in accordance with paragraph 5 of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement;

    (b) in relation to the British-Irish Council, in accordance with the first paragraph 5 of Strand Three of that Agreement.").

    The noble Lord said: The next three groups of amendments deal collectively with the various bodies to be set up under strands 2 and 3 of the Belfast agreement. The Government's amendments introduced four new clauses to replace the existing Clauses 65 to 67 on which I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that they stand part of the Bill.
    Before considering each group in turn, I remind noble Lords of the important institutions which are to be set up under strands 2 and 3 of the agreement. Those are: the North-South Ministerial Council which will develop co-operation between the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government; the British-Irish Council, sometimes called the Council of the Isles, which will promote dialogue and consultation

    1445
    throughout these islands; and the British-Irish Inter-Governmental Conference in which the British and Irish Governments will co-operate on all matters of mutual interest including non-devolved Northern Ireland matters.
    In addition, under the auspices of the North-South Ministerial Council, at least six implementation bodies are to be identified and established for the specific purpose of implementing on an all-island or cross-border level policies agreed in the council.
    Strands 2 and 3 are an integral part of the Belfast agreement. That is reflected in the fact that they will now constitute a distinct part of the Bill rather than being included under "Miscellaneous and General" as at present. The various institutions I have outlined will enable the Northern Ireland administration to develop positive relationships and practical co-operation within the island of Ireland and within these islands in a way which will deliver real benefits to all the people living in these islands.
    During consultation with the parties, two key issues have emerged in respect of the clauses: first, the need to ensure that Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council are properly accountable to the Assembly, without introducing additional checks and balances not envisaged in the agreement which would hamper its effectiveness; secondly, the need to make clear that participation in the council when required is an essential responsibility of ministerial office.
    The new clauses address these issues and reflect a number of points made by the parties. Ultimately, the key to successful development of North-South and East-West arrangements is not to be found in legislation. What is needed is for the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to demonstrate the spirit of trust and co-operation that was the foundation of the agreement and to work together for the benefit of all the people. I am confident that, as with so many other challenges that have been faced, the politicians of Northern Ireland will prove able to rise to this challenge.
    Turning to the detail of the new clauses, Amendment No. 111 requires the First and Deputy First Ministers to make such nominations as to ensure appropriate representation by Northern Ireland Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council and in the British-Irish Council. This representation is clearly that which is required by the Belfast agreement.
    The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has tabled Amendment No. 111A which seeks to ensure that the nominations shall be in accordance with paragraph 30 of strand one and that no one Minister shall represent the Assembly on his or her own. Paragraph 30 of strand one states that arrangements to represent the Assembly shall be such as to ensure cross-community involvement. While the clause's current reference to the agreement takes in this paragraph, I have some sympathy for the point raised by the noble Lord. If he will withdraw the amendment, I will consider further whether there needs to be more explicit reference to the need for representation to be on a cross-community basis.
    Returning to Amendment No. 111, it is clear that Northern Ireland Ministers operating in the councils are fully accountable to the Assembly and must act in accordance with any relevant decision of the Assembly or executive committee. As my colleague the Minister of State said when this was being considered in another place, the council will be accountable both to the Dail in Dublin and to the Belfast Assembly. It must be so.
    Accountability requires openness and transparency and these amendments also ensure that the Assembly is fully informed about business at the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. This includes being given details of the agenda and ministerial nominations in advance of meetings and a report on their outcome. Of course, Ministers will continue to be accountable to the Assembly in the relevant Assembly committee for their operation in either council, as they are for all their responsibilities.
    Another important aspect of participation in the North-South Ministerial Council is that it is an essential responsibility of ministerial office. That is clearly set out in strand two of the agreement and is given effect in Amendment No. 111. It is my belief that Ministers will live up to their pledge of office by discharging all their duties. The people of Northern Ireland will expect them to do so. Of course, should a Minister fail to carry out this responsibility, as with any other breach of the pledge, it will be for the Assembly to decide whether any action is appropriate. If for any reason a Minister is unable to participate normally in the council the agreement allows for the First and Deputy First Ministers to be able to make alternative arrangements. This amendment enables the Minister to authorise another Minister who is nominated by the First and Deputy First Ministers to attend the council to enter into agreements or arrangements in respect of matters for which he is responsible, thus enabling work in the North-South Ministerial Council to proceed.
    This is a complex area of the Bill through which we are seeking to give full effect to the provisions in strand two of the agreement for alternative arrangements. We will continue to give close scrutiny to this clause to ensure that this objective is met.
    Amendment No. 111B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would enable all Ministers, including the First and Deputy First Ministers, to authorise another Minister to enter into agreements on their behalf. This provision is intended to enable only those Northern Ireland Ministers with departmental responsibilities to make such authorisation, and hence I must resist the amendment.
    Amendment No. 112 provides that the Assembly may pass legislation for the purpose of giving effect to arrangements or agreements entered into by Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council and in the British-Irish Council. There had earlier been some doubt as to whether the Assembly had legislative competence in this respect. This amendment ensures that the Assembly has the necessary authority. Amendment No. 112 also contains an important further provision in relation to the accountability of the North-South Ministerial Council to the Assembly.
    On the specific matter of establishing new implementation bodies, which I know is of concern to some Members of the Committee, we have made clear that no agreement to establish a North-South implementation body shall come into operation without the specific approval of the Assembly. This is in line with paragraph 12 of strand two of the agreement. While Amendment No. 180, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Lester, and Amendment No. 112C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would also have this effect, they go further by requiring Assembly approval for every agreement entered into in the councils. This clearly goes further than the agreement, which envisages Ministers being able to operate within their defined authority and therefore not requiring specific Assembly approval for every decision.
    I turn to the remainder of the amendments in the group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I propose to accept Amendment No. 112A, which helpfully makes clear that it is only Ministers who may enter into agreements in the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. Amendment No. 112B proposes that, as a result of agreements in the North-South Ministerial Council, Acts of the Assembly should enable functions to be transferred to a body rather than to an authority, as currently drafted. The language currently used is taken from the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and, in view of the establishment of implementation bodies, it may be that the suggested language would be more appropriate. If the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment we will look at the language further.
    Amendment No. 112D suggests that the definition of an implementation body should be made with reference to paragraph 12 of strand two rather than to paragraph 11. I confess that I am unclear as to the reasoning behind the suggestion. The existing definition is entirely appropriate since it simply defines implementation bodies as set out in the agreement as bodies to implement on an all-island and cross-border basis policies agreed in the North-South Ministerial Council.
    Before leaving the group, perhaps I may also mention government Amendment No. 226, which is a related technical amendment and includes provision to ensure that agreements made in the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council, or in relation to implementation bodies, come within the Assembly's legislative competence. I beg to move.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 111, Amendment No. 111A:
    Line 10, at end insert—
    ("(1A) Such nominations shall be in accordance with paragraph 30 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement and shall ensure that no one Minister represents the Assembly.").
    The noble Lord said: I wish to make several points on this group of amendments; a portmanteau, as it were. The first concerns the suggested title for what is described as Part IVA, which covers all the different bodies; that is, NSMC, BIC, BIIC etc. It seems to me rather infelicitous. I attempted through the Public Bill
    1448
    Office to propose an amendment suggesting that instead the title "External Relationships", a phrase from the Belfast agreement, might cover these matters in a more felicitous manner. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to propose amendments to the cross headings of Bills and therefore my amendment does not appear on the Marshalled List. I must downgrade it to a suggestion because it seems that such matters are entirely within the hands of the Minister and his colleagues rather than the Committee as a whole.
    As regards the principle lying behind the drafting of the new clause, which appears as Amendment No. 111, I am content with the general approach and the way it has been developed, as described by the Minister. However, I wish to raise a number of points. First, he was kind enough to suggest that were I not to press Amendment No. 111A he would look into it. It attempts to ensure that, in accordance with paragraph 30 of strand one of the agreement, the involvement of Northern Ireland Ministers in the council should be on a cross-party basis. It seems to me that that requires that normally two Ministers should be there. Admittedly, my amendment suggests that there should always be two Ministers there, but perhaps that lays down a little too much detail. The spirit of trying to make sure that those going to the Assembly represent all the Executive—and, for that matter, all the Assembly—as far as possible, on a cross-community basis, is the right one. In due course I shall not press that amendment in the hope that the Minister will come back on it.
    Amendment No. 111B leaves out "Northern Ireland" in line 17 of the new clause. As the Minister said, the subsection enables a Minister to authorise another Minister to enter into agreements. I was slightly surprised by the Minister's response. He said that the wording had been chosen in order to stop the First Minister and Deputy First Minister being able to authorise another Minister to enter into an agreement. The departmental Ministers may do so, but if both they, the First Minister and his deputy are to do so, the wording, as refined by my amendment, would cover it because the Minister is defined elsewhere in the Bill as meaning the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the departmental Ministers. I imagine that that is what we wish to happen. I am pleased that my relatively modest suggestion in Amendment No. 112A has been accepted by the Minister and I need say no more about that.
    Amendment No. 112B suggests including the word "body" instead of the word "authority". As the Minister rightly said, it seems that most of the institutions referred to here are cross-border bodies. In that context, "body" might be the more appropriate word. Again, I shall not press it in the light of what the Minister said. The other small matter concerns what paragraph of strand 2 of the Belfast Agreement should be referred to in subsection (5) dealing with the implementation bodies. I thought that it was just a slip in the drafting of the Bill. But the Minister seemed to suggest that paragraph 12 had been carefully chosen and preferred to paragraph 11, which states that,
    "the implementation bodies will have a clear operational remit. They will implement on an all-island and cross-border basis".

    1449
    That is the basis of them. Paragraph 12 suggests how the bodies might develop. My amendment should have included both paragraphs 11 and 12 because of the bodies that may develop as a result of further progress over the years. I shall not press my amendment as it stands; nevertheless paragraph 12 has some validity in that context.
    A more important question, addressed in my Amendment No. 112C and also the amendment of the Liberal Democrat Party, is the authority that Northern Ireland Ministers will have when attending these meetings. My amendment suggests that no agreement or arrangement shall come into operation without the approval of the Assembly whereas the Minister is suggesting that the approval of the Assembly will only be required to set up a cross-border body. I believe that the best solution probably lies somewhere between us. I wish to reflect more on that before we finalise it. But it should be clear that when Ministers attend meetings of this character they are doing so as representatives not only of the Northern Ireland Executive, but also as representatives of the Northern Ireland Assembly. What they say in the councils cannot of itself bind the Assembly, which should be able to make its own decisions as to whether to support a particular measure or not.
    It is not an entirely analogous situation. As a Minister I used to go to European meetings of various councils when I was with different departments. It was noticeable that British Ministers at such European councils frequently entered parliamentary reserves on the decisions that we were making in order to permit debates to take place in this House and also in the other place to get approval for what we were agreeing to. Obviously, we did not agree to anything about which we did not believe we could persuade Parliament. Nevertheless, we entered a parliamentary reserve and, very frequently, so did the Danes. Virtually no country apart from those two ever entered a parliamentary reserve, but simply took their parliaments for granted. It seemed to me that it was the strength of the Danish and British systems that to some degree the parliaments remained in control of what Ministers did when they attended the various councils and reached conclusions, sometimes as a result of very hard bargaining in the middle of the night.
    Although that situation is not entirely comparable, it is related to the situation we are discussing here. It should be clear that, in attending these councils, Ministers are answerable to the Assembly for what they do and have to obtain approval for any significant departures from the policy which the Assembly has already agreed. Quite how we express that in the Bill is more tricky. It may be that my drafting or that of the noble Lord representing the Liberal Democrats is not entirely satisfactory, but something like it needs to be stated, if only by the Minister. After all, in these days of Pepper v. Hart we hope that that can have some influence on the matter even if it is not written into the Bill. I beg to move.
    3.30 p.m.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I very much welcome the fact that the Government have made a new start in Amendments Nos. 111 to 114. We had got ourselves into a tangle with the drafting and it is right to go for a fresh and clarificatory start here on such matters as the Executive Committee being given dates, times, venues and agendas of north-south meetings, and the fact that Ministers who attend such meetings are to make reports to the Executive and Assembly, which is extremely important, and also that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have a duty to ensure reasonable attendance at the north-south council meetings. I also welcome that, in terms of new implementation bodies, the Government have tried to deal with the point raised by my Amendment No. 180 and Amendment No. 112C of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
    I wish to speak briefly about my amendment. But first I ask the Minister how frequently the Government envisage these strand 2 and 3 meetings taking place. He may reply to the effect that it is simply up to the Assembly and the Irish Government. But it is legitimate for this Committee to hear the Government's view. As regards the question of reasonable attendance, perhaps I may clarify this point. If the two DUP Ministers do not attend, would that still constitute reasonable attendance for the members of the Executive?
    As regards the other amendments in this grouping, which is a somewhat motley one, I was delighted to hear that the Government will accept Amendment No. 111A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, with which the Liberal Democrat Benches agree.
    On Monday the Government told us that as regards Amendment No. 111B they were intending to clarify titles generally. We are in a mess of nomenclature. We have Northern Ireland Ministers; First and Deputy First Ministers; departmental Ministers and junior Ministers. The promise that the Government have made to sort out titles throughout the Bill is welcome. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord believes it will help this amendment as well.
    As to Amendment No. 112B, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, is entirely right to try to use the word "body" rather than "authority", for a reason that neither he nor the Minister have so far mentioned. It is crucial, in building this new relationship between the new assembly and the Republic of Ireland, that we do not revert to the language of earlier discussions in Anglo-Irish relations 10 years ago and try to impute an authority that does not exist for this cross-border body. For that reason the term "body", which implies an evolving co-operative relationship, rather than "authority" is highly desirable.
    I speak now, briefly, to my own Amendment No. 180, which is similar in intent to Amendment No. 112C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I concede that mine is a probing amendment. It seeks clarification on how new north-south agreements will be endorsed, or otherwise, by the Assembly. At one extreme we have the kind of amendment which has been proposed by the UKUP in the Assembly, which I would interpret as a wrecking amendment, which provides that every single

    1451
    issue that arises has to be approved by the Assembly. Presumably that is designed by the UKUP to be a brake on the whole process. It is desirable that some positive momentum is built up in the north-south body. To that extent it is desirable that the executive Ministers have some latitude, particularly since they are now committed to reporting back to the Assembly. I hope that it will be common ground with the Conservative Benches that some latitude for the executive Ministers on that body is desirable. It is equally desirable that they should report.
    I am not clear, beyond the new implementation bodies, whether the Government envisage any matters upon which the approval of the Assembly would have to be sought for agreements entered into by executive Ministers in that cross-border body. In order to determine my own attitude and my amendment, I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with that point when he responds.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: When we finished our deliberations on Monday evening at around 11.30, I went home feeling somewhat depressed. It seemed to me that we were setting the standard for the remainder of the Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading, with the Minister, through no wish of his own, finding himself in the position of having to block every amendment tabled by the Official Opposition or other parties represented in your Lordships' House. That is not intended as a slight on the Minister. We have to remember that he is dealing with these matters at long range and he is burdened with the responsibility of speaking for four of his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office in addition to his own onerous duty. I am greatly encouraged by the willingness of the Minister not only to say that he will look at the amendments put forward by, in this instance, the Official Opposition, but to do his best to take them on board and implement them.
    When I had the responsibility of leading a minority party at the other end of the building I always took the view that it was necessary for minority parties to align themselves as far as possible with the government of the day and Her Majesty's Official Opposition of the day, otherwise we would have a collection of isolated voices crying in the wilderness, and we would get nowhere.
    I pay tribute to the Minister and to his opposite number, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, who leads for Her Majesty's Official Opposition. While I would not want to raise expectations too high, I think we can rely upon the Minister to ensure that reasonable amendments put forward in a reasonable way will be given a fair hearing by Her Majesty's Government. In that way we may secure something like all-party agreement on the broad principles of the Bill on which your Lordships are now deliberating for a third day.
    3.45 p.m.
    Lord Skelmersdale: I too welcome the opening statement by the Minister, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has just said, is evidence of an open-mindedness, certainly towards this part of the Bill. I, too, was going to make the same points as the noble
    1452
    Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, on the subject of Ministers and on clearing up definitions, but we have had that discussion and there is no need for me to labour the point. We will watch, eagle-eyed, on Report to see what amendments emanate from the Government.
    Any of us who have had any connection with Northern Ireland, whether as outsiders or those who live and work there, know that words matter tremendously in the context of Northern Ireland. One of the reasons for the failure of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the hate that it generated was the words used. I lend my very positive support to my noble friend Lord Cope in his Amendment No. 112B. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that we will be doing everybody a great disservice if we leave the word "authority" in the Bill. "Body" is a far, far better term. There may be others, but I am not a wordsmith.
    As to Amendment No. 180 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I also lend my support to that amendment. It is absolutely vital. The cross-border relationship has become a touchy subject over recent years, notwithstanding the signing of the Belfast Agreement by virtually everyone in the Province. It will continue to be a touchy subject. One way of avoiding such touchiness must be to get as much cross-party agreement about external relations as can possibly be achieved. I am sure that the Government will take that on board.
    Lord Hylton: I shall refer briefly to this amendment by referring to what is said in strand 2 of the Belfast Agreement. The first line of paragraph 2 reads:
    "All Council decisions to be by agreement between the two sides".
    That seems to be as clear a unanimity rule as one could possibly hope to have.
    Paragraph 5 goes on to speak of using best endeavours to reach agreement and then, in the next subsection, to taking decisions by agreement. In paragraph 6 it refers to:
    "co-ordination of executive functions within each jurisdiction. Each side to remain accountable to the Assembly and to the Oireachtas respectively".
    That is the parliamentary approval, of which mention has already been made. I hope that the mention of those points in the agreement document will help to dispel certain fears that have already arisen and are likely to arise in future among certain people.
    Lord Dubs: I am grateful for the supportive comments which have been made by various Members of the Committee. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, went home depressed on Monday night. I cannot guarantee that he will be utterly cheerful this evening, but certainly the Government are open-minded about many of the issues which your Lordships may wish to put forward. We shall reflect on all amendments, and where we can meet a point we shall do so, as I indicated a few moments ago.

    1453
    Let me deal with some of the specific questions that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, made a point about the way in which parliamentary counsel attach sub-headings or headings to part of the Bill. This is not within the direct responsibility of the Government, but certainly I would like to reflect on the points made by the noble Lord to see what can be done by using our influence.
    I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Holme, and other noble Lords for their helpful comments about whether Ministers, including the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, would have the power to authorise other Ministers to participate on their behalf. I should like to consider that point further in the light of the comments made this afternoon.
    The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about the frequency of meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council. Strand 2 of the agreement makes it clear that the North-South Ministerial Council should meet in plenary form twice a year, but it should also meet in sectoral formats on a regular and frequent basis as is appropriate. So, the exact frequency of such meetings, as the noble Lord anticipated, will be for the Northern Ireland administration and the Irish Government to agree, rather than having anything set down in the legislation.
    The noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Holme, and other noble Lords asked about the basis for approval by the assembly of agreements made in the North-South Ministerial Council. I agree that Ministers must be accountable. Indeed, subsection (5) of Amendment No. 111 provides for a report to the assembly on each council meeting. I also agree that Ministers must act in accordance with decisions of the executive committee and assembly. That is set out in subsection (3) of Amendment No. 111. I also agree that where any agreement in the council requires legislative or financial approval from the assembly, such an agreement cannot come into effect without such specific approval. The Minister would have to go back to the assembly and secure the necessary legislative and financial authority. But beyond that there are all kinds of points on which agreement might be entered into by a Minister. One would not want unduly to trammel the freedom of action of the Minister, particularly if he is acting in accordance with stated policies. So where legislative or financial approval is not required, the agreement intends that the Minister should be able to act within his or her own defined authority. Of course, even in such instances the Minister will still be obliged to report to the assembly, and doubtless when members of the assembly make their views clear the Minister will take account of them.
    What I am saying in brief is that there may be occasions when the Minister will be obliged to go to the assembly for authority but there will be other occasions when, by acting within existing policy and acting entirely within his authority and where legislative or financial approval is not necessary, it would be unduly restrictive to demand that the Minister goes back to the assembly for approval on each of those matters.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I find that explanation very
    1454
    helpful. However, the crux of the matter seems to be the phrase "Ministers acting within their defined authority". Can the Minister explain what that means in this specific context? What does he mean by "Ministers acting within their defined authority", beyond the report back, not needing to seek the approval of the assembly?
    Lord Dubs: I would give the analogy of the way in which Ministers in this House and another place act in relation to being accountable. After all, Ministers have to make a large number of decisions. If Ministers reported to the House on each one of those and sought the House's approval, our proceedings might well come to a standstill. I shall give an example from the annex to the agreement, which indicates 12 headings for North-South co-operation and implementation. The first refers to agriculture and animal and plant health. As I am the agriculture Minister for Northern Ireland, I am aware of the authority I have to deal with a number of matters under animal and plant health. I do not need financial or legislative authority for those. Therefore, my successor—the agriculture Minister in the assembly—would have similar scope. He would be able to take action, as he would for matters that are exclusively matters for Northern Ireland which do not come into the North-South arrangements. We are simply indicating what would be normal ministerial practice in this House and in another place. There is nothing untoward about that. In the end, I suppose that one has to be specific in relation to particular examples, but I think the position is clear. Ministers are accountable but, subject to the way I have described it, they do not have to go back with every single decision that they make.
    Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, does he accept that he and other noble Lords who have served as United Kingdom Ministers in Northern Ireland have acted under a form of delegated authority? If he accepts that, surely to goodness the Ministers who are the representatives of the assembly on these bodies ought to act with the same kind of delegated authority. At the moment, as I understand it, there is no system for the assembly to delegate a Minister to do a job. It might well be that a way out of this would be to have in the assembly's standing orders the power of delegation from the whole assembly to the Ministers who are going to participate in these bodies.
    Lord Dubs: If the noble Lord is talking about standing orders, those will be up to the Assembly. It is not a matter which we would want to put on the face of the Bill.
    The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about Ministers' attendance. Ministers are obliged to attend. It is part of the condition of their taking office that they have to fulfil their responsibilities. Those include attending North-South Ministerial Council meetings where they are appropriate for them. The failure of any Minister to do so would be a matter with which the assembly would then have to deal.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: Unless I missed it, I am not sure that the noble Lord responded to Amendment

    1455
    No. 111B; that is, which Ministers are to be allowed to authorise other Ministers to enter into an agreement. The question is whether or not the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are able to nominate someone to enter into an agreement.
    Lord Dubs: The noble Lord may have missed it. I said at the beginning that I was grateful for his helpful comments and that I would consider the matter further.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: On the point about ministerial attendance, the words used are "reasonable attendance", which implies a less than 100 per cent. attendance. So, with respect, the noble Lord's reply that Ministers are expected to attend does not solve the problem of "reasonable attendance". If the representatives of two parties did not attend, would that still be "reasonable attendance"?
    Lord Dubs: I am anxious not be drawn into too much detail on this point. However, if it so happens that on a particular occasion and for good reason a Minister is unable to attend, that would come within the scope of "reasonable". If there is a deliberate intention not to take part, that would be unreasonable.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: This debate is founded on Amendment No. 111A. I was interested in the Minister's phrase that he was "influential with" parliamentary counsel over the matter of cross-headings as opposed to being "in charge of" parliamentary counsel. I know exactly what he means and I am glad that he will use his influence correctly. In the light of what he said about Amendment No. 111A, I beg leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment No. 111A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 111, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 111B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 111, not moved.]
    On Question, Amendment No. 111 agreed to.
    Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 112:
    After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
    (".—(1) This section applies to any agreement or arrangement entered into by a person participating, by reason of a nomination under section (North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council), in a meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council.
    (2) Provision may be made by Act of the Assembly for giving effect to any agreement or arrangement to which this section applies, including provision—

    (a) for transferring to any authority designated by or constituted under the agreement or arrangement any functions which would otherwise be exercisable by any Minister or Northern Ireland department;

    (b) for transferring to a Minister or Northern Ireland department any functions which would otherwise be exercisable by any authority outside Northern Ireland.

    (3) Subsection (2) has effect notwithstanding anything in subsection (2)(a) of section 6; but it does not affect—

    (a) the operation of subsection (2)(b) to (f) of that section; or

    (b) the operation of section 7 or 13 in relation to the enactment of any Act of the Assembly.

    (4) No agreement or arrangement to which this section applies entered into for the establishment after the appointed day of an implementation body shall come into operation without the approval of the Assembly.
    (5) In subsection (4) "implementation body" means a body for implementing, on the basis mentioned in paragraph 11 of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement, policies agreed in the North-South Ministerial Council.").
    Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 112, Amendment No. 112A:
    Line 3, leave out ("person") and insert ("Minister").
    The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
    On Question, Amendment No. 112A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 112, agreed to.
    [Amendments Nos. 112B to 112D, as amendments to Amendment No. 112, not moved.]
    On Question, Amendment No. 112, as amended, agreed to.
    4 p.m.
    Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 113:
    After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—

    BRITISH-IRISH INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE
    (".—(1) This section applies where excepted or reserved matters relating to Northern Ireland are to be discussed at a meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.
    (2) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall ensure that there is such attendance at the meeting as appears to them to be required by the Belfast Agreement.
    (3) In this section "attendance" means attendance by one or more Ministers.").
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 113 deals with attendance by Northern Ireland Ministers at meetings of the British-Irish intergovernmental conference which is to be set up for the purpose of enabling the British and Irish Governments to co-operate on all matters of mutual interest, including non-devolved Northern Ireland affairs. This clause provides that when Northern Ireland matters are to be discussed at a meeting of the conference, the First and Deputy First Ministers shall ensure such attendance by Northern Ireland Ministers as is required by the agreement.
    I should like to take a few moments to emphasise the significance of the clause. Previously, the British and Irish Governments came together in an Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference to discuss a range of issues in relation to Northern Ireland. It was a cause of some frustration that there was no involvement of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland during those discussions. That is now being remedied in the new British-Irish intergovernmental conference.
    Furthermore, the British-Irish intergovernmental conference will enable the two governments to work together on all matters of mutual interest. While Northern Ireland will be a key part of that agenda, it will be open to Ministers to discuss any issues of mutual concern.
    Amendments Nos. 113A and 113B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, deal also with the attendance of Northern Ireland Ministers at meetings of the British-Irish intergovernmental conference. The former

    1457
    would amend the current provisions to ensure that at least two Ministers attend, thus allowing for cross-community involvement. As I said earlier, we are discussing that matter further in relation to representation at all of the new institutions. The latter amendment would delete any definition of "attendance" in this clause and in my view would make it unclear whether attendance was limited to Northern Ireland Ministers or whether it could go wider. I beg to move.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 113, Amendment No. 113A:
    Line 6, after ("attendance") insert ("by at least two Ministers").
    The noble Lord said: I was interested to hear the Minister say that he thought that if the wording were tidied up by leaving out subsection (3) and incorporating the point in subsection (2), it would somehow weaken the definition of "attendance". However, subsection (3) says that:
    "'Attendance' means attendance by one or more Ministers".
    It struck me first that we might include the phrase "one or more Ministers" after "attendance" in subsection (2). That would mean that with rather better English we should have achieved in one subsection what it has taken the draftsman two subsections to achieve. That is a purely drafting amendment of no great consequence except to improve the English, which we always seek to try to do.
    A further thought that strikes me in order to ensure cross-border representation is that the provision should say—and could do so in either of the methods to which I have just referred—that two Ministers should normally be expected to attend so as to ensure cross-community representation. That is a separate point and the Minister has said that he will look at it.
    A suggestion made to me is that the Belfast agreement, at paragraph 7 on page 15, more or less gives the First Minister and Deputy First Minister the right to attend. It states:
    "Relevant executive members of the Northern Ireland Administration will be involved in meetings of the Conference, and in the reviews referred to in paragraph 9".
    That seems more or less to give them the right to attend. I am not quite sure that that is fully carried into the Bill by Amendment No. 113.
    A different and wider point arises from what the Minister said. He used the expression "including non-devolved matters". As I understand it, the British-Irish intergovernmental conference will discuss only non-devolved matters. It will not discuss devolved matters. Strand 3 says about the British-Irish intergovernmental conference that it will,
    "promote bilateral co-operation at all levels on all matters of mutual interest within the competence of both Governments".
    But of course the Government are devolving to Northern Ireland a raft of responsibilities. Paragraph 5 states that,
    "there will be regular and frequent meetings of the Conference concerned with non-devolved Northern Ireland matters".
    1458
    The paragraph later refers to,
    "cross-border co-operation on non-devolved issues".
    Paragraph 6 states:
    "The conference also will address … areas of rights, justice, prisons and policing in Northern Ireland (unless and until responsibility is devolved to the Northern Ireland administration)".
    Once devolved, the British-Irish intergovernmental conference will cease to be involved in those matters, as the agreement stands.
    Amendment No. 113 states:
    "This section applies where excepted or reserved matters relating to Northern Ireland are to be discussed".
    That implies that devolved matters will be discussed sometimes but goes on to imply that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will not attend when devolved matters are discussed but will attend when non-devolved matters are being discussed. That is extremely odd. I believe that further reflection may be necessary in relation to these provisions.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the two amendments. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the point made in lines 8 and 9. It seems to me that the argument is the other way around. I find it difficult to understand why it is necessary to have those two lines as a kind of interpretation post-script at the end of the proposed new clause. The provision would be strengthened if the words appeared in subsection (2), as suggested in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
    I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that we need to think more carefully about devolved, reserved and non-transferred matters. Perhaps at a later stage we can address our minds to those issues.
    Lord Dubs: I am grateful for the comments of both noble Lords. As regards subsection (3), I should like to consider the matter further in the light of those comments.
    As to whether the British-Irish intergovernmental conference can discuss non-devolved matters, it will be able to discuss any areas of mutual interest, including subjects not related to Northern Ireland. That goes rather wider than the noble Lord understood. The conference will not discuss devolved matters in relation to Northern Ireland. The reason that that terminology is used is because we wish to allow for the possibility of discussing any areas of mutual interest, including subjects not specifically relating to Northern Ireland.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: For the avoidance of doubt, would there not be a case for the Northern Ireland Ministers to be present even as observers? There are many examples of misunderstanding. We can rely on the news industry to make sure that friction is created if Ministers are not there at first hand to hear what is happening.
    Lord Dubs: It depends on how many Minsters there would have to be at such meetings. We are going rather wider than is appropriate even on such a detailed Bill as this one. Ministers who have a key need to be there will

    1459
    be there. The Assembly and the Executive would have to decide the basis of attendance through the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: This debate is founded on Amendment No. 113A, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment No. 113A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 113, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 113B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 113, not moved.]
    On Question, Amendment No. 113 agreed to.
    Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 114:
    After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—

    IMPLEMENTATION BODIES
    (".—(1) The Secretary of State may make an order about any body—

    (a) which he considers to be an implementation body; and

    (b) which is, or is to be, established on or before the appointed day.

    (2) An order under this section may make any such provision as may be made (after the appointed day) by Act of the Assembly and may in particular—

    (a) confer on the body the legal capacities of a body corporate;

    (b) confer on the body any function which the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient for the purpose for which it is, or is to be, established;

    (c) confer on a Northern Ireland department power to make grants to the body out of money appropriated by Act of the Assembly;

    (d) make provision as to the accounting and audit arrangements which are to apply in relation to the body; and

    (e) make consequential or supplementary provisions, including provisions amending or repealing any Northern Ireland legislation, or any instrument made under such legislation.

    (3) In this section "implementation body" means a body for implementing, on the basis mentioned in paragraph 11 of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement, policies agreed in the North-South Ministerial Council.").
    The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the initial group of North-South implementation bodies, which are to be set up under the North-South Ministerial Council. In considering this amendment it is important that noble Lords should understand the means by which these bodies will be established. Under the agreement, representatives of the Northern Ireland Administration and of the Irish Government operating in the North-South Ministerial Council are to identify and agree at least six areas where co-operation will take place through implementation bodies operating on a cross-border or all-island basis.
    These bodies, which will begin to operate on the same day that powers are transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly, must be given their necessary legal capacity, functions and powers through separate legislation in both jurisdictions. The clause enables the Secretary of State to make orders for this purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has put down two amendments, Amendments Nos. 114A and 181, which seek to ensure that the powers of the implementation bodies will be the
    1460
    same on both sides of the border. I can assure him that this will indeed be the case and that the proposed amendments are therefore unnecessary.
    An implementation body will be one body operating in the same agreed manner on both sides of the border. While separate legislation is needed in each jurisdiction, it will give effect to agreement reached between the representatives of the Northern Ireland Administration and of the Irish Government, setting out the powers which the body is to have.
    Amendment No. 205, a later government amendment, is a technical amendment which ensures that any orders made by the Secretary of State in relation to the initial implementation bodies are subject to affirmative resolution in each House. I beg to move.
    4.15 p.m.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 114, Amendment No. 114A:
    Line 3, after ("body") insert—
    ("() which has the same powers in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland;").
    The noble Lord said: The Minister mentioned Amendment No. 205 which I had not realised we were intending to discuss with this amendment. It is not on the list I have of proposed groupings, unless I have misread it. I thought we were discussing Amendments Nos. 114 and 114A. Can the Minister please clarify the position?
    Lord Dubs: I mentioned Amendment No. 205 simply to be helpful. I will deal with it in its appropriate place later on, if that is easier.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am most grateful to the Minister. I am unsighted as regards that particular amendment at this moment. With regard to Amendment No. 114A and the associated Amendment No. 181, the intention is to make sure that there are the same powers on both sides of the border. The Minister has confirmed that that will be the case. I am not sure whether it is necessary to amend the Bill to say so, but the Government should make as clear as possible to everybody that that is the intention. It would reassure some people who had thought the cross-border bodies a way in which the Republic was to gain power over Northern Ireland. In fact, of course, it is mutual, because in Northern Ireland the Assembly and the Executive will gain power over the Republic—exactly equal to the power which the Republic will gain over Northern Ireland. In these days, when sovereignty is such a sensitive matter, it is very important to make that absolutely clear in order to reassure people.
    I am a little unclear about the precise legal basis of these bodies. The Minister said that the cross-border bodies would be given legal capacity through separate legislation in each jurisdiction. That seems to be the Foyle Fisheries Commission model, if I can put it that way. That commission has, I understand, worked extremely well. However, it is rather an odd arrangement. There are really two bodies, one in Northern Ireland and the other in the Republic of

    1461
    Ireland, and they habitually function as one. Legally speaking, however, I believe that they are two separate bodies and not one single body.
    A different model is that used for the International Fund for Ireland. That is a single international organisation, created by a treaty between the two states concerned, in this case the United Kingdom and the Republic. It has a legal personality as a single international body and can function in that way. I had rather thought that the new cross-border bodies would be of that international character and that there would be a single body with jurisdiction in both states within the limits of the agreement. However, it seems not. There are to be two separate legal bodies, one on either side of the border, carrying out the same functions. That is a rather more difficult model to follow. I should be grateful for more elucidation from the Minister as to exactly what is to be the legal position of the cross-border bodies.
    Lord Fitt: I wish to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said in relation to clarity concerning cross-border bodies. One could go into a long lecture over what happened at Sunningdale, but I do not propose to do so. The cross-border bodies, as envisaged in the Sunningdale agreement, effectively brought the executive to an end. I can see, reading the Belfast newspapers and listening to the speeches of the various political parties, that there is some ambivalence in the minds of some of those involved in Northern Ireland.
    One side is saying that the Assembly will have the legal authority to either accept or reject the implementation body. The other is saying that the Assembly will not have that force. It is of massive importance in relation to the North-South body to take into account the sensitivities of the two communities in Northern Ireland. When the Sunningdale executive was set up, the cross-border bodies were then referred to as the Council of Ireland. One section of political thought in Northern Ireland said that the cross-border bodies were absolutely no danger to the unionist majority in Northern Ireland; the other section of politicians were saying the opposite. In fact one member of my own party, Mr. Hugh Logue, in discussing at a press conference the Council of Ireland proposals—namely, what we have now in the North-South body—asked whether people did not realise that setting up the Council of Ireland proposals was the vehicle that would trundle the unionists into a united Ireland. Once that appeared in the press it spelt the end of the Sunningdale executive, because that was exactly what the opponents of Sunningdale were saying. That explains the urgent need for clarity over what responsibilities will be held by the implementation bodies and whether or not those bodies will, by agreement, be referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Oireachtas in the Republic. The importance of clarity cannot be exaggerated in this very sensitive matter.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Perhaps I can press the Minister, when he replies, on the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Fitt. In the Belfast
    1462
    agreement those bodies are described in several places on page 12 in the following terms:
    "Matters … will take place through agreed implementation bodies on a cross-border or all-island level".
    In paragraph 11 it says,
    "The implementation bodies will have a clear operational remit. They will implement on an all-island and cross-border basis policies agreed in the Council".
    Can the Minister say whether they are bodies in which co-operation is agreed or, to put it crudely, they are bodies which get on with it? The normal meaning of "operational remit" is that a body which, for instance, deals with tourism gets on with promoting tourism on a cross-border basis. Presumably those are not implementation bodies because both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland already have such bodies. Is it intended by the Government that in any instance the cross-border bodies will be operational bodies, as opposed to bodies in which the modes and policies of co-operation are worked out? That is not exactly the same point as that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, although it overlaps it. I am extremely unclear about this. It may be that one type of body will evolve into another, but it would be useful to hear the Government's thinking on that. I am not as modest as the noble Lord, Lord Cope—it is his amendment—but there is a great deal to be said for pressing the Government on this matter.
    In relation to Amendment No. 114A it is important to define "reciprocity". The noble Lord's words were reassuring on this but I do not understand why it should not appear on the face of the Bill. It may be that the wording is not exactly right and it may be that it should read "has equivalent powers", because in two different jurisdictions identification of the same powers may be difficult. However, the notion that there should be an equivalence of powers in the two jurisdictions is an important point to enshrine in the Bill.
    Lord Monson: I strongly support the noble Lords, Lord Cope, Lord Fitt and Lord Holme of Cheltenham. If support for the Good Friday agreement by the majority in the north is to be sustained, it is vital that there be reciprocity and that any powers enabling the Republic to interfere in the affairs of the north be matched by corresponding powers for the north to interfere in the affairs of the Republic.
    The Minister says that that is unnecessary. However, to avoid any possible confusion and, even more importantly, to avoid any suspicion, why not dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s by supporting this modest amendment. It can do no possible harm and may well do a great deal of good.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I strongly support other Members of the Committee in saying that above all there must be clarity of interpretation. That has been missing up until now. I sincerely hope that both Governments are seized of the importance of remedying that deficiency.

    1463
    There may be a temptation in some quarters to indulge in fudge. It may suit people at times to be somewhat vague about their intentions. But with all the force at my command I say that that is not a luxury that we can afford.
    Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: We are discussing probably the most important part of the agreement and one which will give the most trouble. I strongly support all that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and other Members of the Committee.
    There is a great suspicion that the powers in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland will not be the same. That may be because those powers have to be passed in the Parliament in Dublin and the Government there do not have as large a majority as the Government in Westminster. It may well be that the Bills which go through in Dublin are altered in one way or another. I think the appropriate word is "equivalent". It is important that that is included in the Bill. There must be no doubt or fudge on this matter of cross-border bodies.
    Lord Dubs: I have been asked a number of questions and, particularly, to clarify how this system will work. Let me deal first with the key question.
    I agree that implementation bodies are not intended to set policy. Policy will be agreed by Ministers operating in the North/South Ministerial Council. The policy having been set, its implementation will then be carried out by the implementation bodies. That reflects closely the wording of the agreement read out a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. There is a clear distinction between the North/South Ministerial Council, where policy will have to be agreed by Ministers, and, where an implementation body is to be set up, the implementation body itself, which will have specific responsibility for giving effect to those policies.
    Of course I agree that bodies will be mutual and reciprocal and will implement agreed policies on both sides of the Border. It is clear that pressure can initially come in both directions, but those policies will have to be agreed by the council. The policies of the implementation bodies will be similar policies to those to which they have to give effect.
    The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked whether the Foyle Fisheries Commission might be an appropriate model. It is certainly an excellent body, but it is not the model we are following in this instance. We are saying that each body will be established by agreement and each will be a single body. But each body will have any power it needs conferred separately—by the Assembly in respect of Northern Ireland and the Irish Parliament in respect of the Republic. The best model for that is perhaps the current Decommissioning Commission—a single body established by agreement but with powers conferred in separate legislation from this Parliament and from the Irish Parliament. That may be a body which does not immediately come to mind as being the best example, but it indicates the way in which we see the implementation bodies working.
    1464
    In asking for clarity the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, again asked whether the bodies would be subject to approval in the Assembly. The initial six bodies are to be agreed between the north and the south in the shadow of the North/South Ministerial Council, which I hope will be established fairly soon. Though the Assembly, during its shadow phase, has no formal powers, the need for cross-community representation in the council ensures broad support for those bodies. However, after devolution, for any body to be established new subsection (4) of Amendment No. 112 will require Assembly approval. I hope that assures the noble Lord that the position is clear, both during the shadow period and subsequently.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Before the Minister sits down, he was kind enough to mention in his opening words Amendment No. 205, to which we will come in Clause 78. However, it appears to be related to our present discussion because it refers to,
    "(Implementation bodies) … (Legislative power to remedy ultra vires acts)".
    Will there be uniformity in both jurisdictions given the different structure of justice in each and the Supreme Court influence in the Irish Republic? I do not press the Minister for a reply, but perhaps he can say whether or not that is the kind of thing he had in mind when he mentioned Amendment No. 205.
    Lord Dubs: The position is this. We have to see on what basis powers are given to implementation bodies; first, in the shadow period leading up to the start of those bodies; and, secondly, when the Assembly is in place and further implementation bodies may be set up. Amendment No. 205 seeks to ensure that any orders made by the Secretary of State in relation to the initial implementation bodies are subject to affirmative resolution in each House. Subsequently, implementation bodies that are set up will have to take their legal basis from the Assembly in relation to Northern Ireland and, in relation to the Republic, the position will remain the same; that is, it will come from the Irish Parliament.
    4.30 p.m.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: Dealing first with the question of the powers on both sides of the Border, I am encouraged by the support that has been expressed in the last few minutes for Amendment No. 114A. However, the Liberal Democrat spokesman has kindly suggested an improvement. I am not sure whether what he said amounted to the moving of a manuscript amendment, but, if it did, I would be prepared to accept the deletion of the words "the same" and substitution of the word "equivalent" before the word "powers". That would be a better way to phrase what I had in mind and would be a reassurance. If the Minister will consider that suggestion between now and Report stage, we can no doubt return to the matter then and take it further, if necessary.
    I return to the question of the status of the implementation bodies. The Minister said that the decommissioning commission is the nearest thing to a model. I am not sure of its legal position, but I do not

    1465
    think that it has a legal personality in international law or in either of the national laws of the two jurisdictions. However, the implementation bodies will need a legal personality. They will need to be able to enter into contracts. They will need to be able to issue contracts of employment to enable staff to carry out their duties. They will need to be able to buy things and, probably, to sell things. They will need a legal personality.
    As far as I understood the Minister, however, we are now talking about a single legal personality crossing the Border. But under which law? The only provision for an international legal personality, as I understand it—I am not a lawyer—is a treaty, but the Assembly and the Executive have no treaty-making powers and, as far as I know, it is not proposed to give them such powers. However, if they are to set up an international body with a legal personality, they may need limited treaty-making powers to be able to agree to such a body under international law.
    The Secretary of State and the United Kingdom could agree with the Republic of Ireland Government to set up particular international bodies under this heading. Perhaps the clause is intended to give the Secretary of State the power to do that, but I must admit that I had not read it in that way. Perhaps the two governments can do so without such powers, but that is slightly different from the idea that we have been given, which is that the Assembly and the Executive could, without reference to the Secretary of State, agree with the Republic of Ireland to establish such a body and to set its work in motion. I do not think that that results in a legal personality unless the "Foyle Fisheries Commission" route is followed although the Minister said that that is not the route to be followed.
    These are complicated legal matters and I am hesitant in outlining them to the Committee in case I do not understand them correctly. However, given what the Minister said, I believe that further reflection is required on the matter of the legal personality of the bodies once they are established.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Perhaps I may say a word because the dilemma that the noble Lord has outlined is acute. I am not sure that the Minister's reply a moment or two ago satisfied me entirely. There is a sort of ambivalence in the Belfast agreement between two possible roles. Perhaps I may restate them. One is that the bodies are a mechanism for co-operation. However, if they are simply a mechanism for co-operation—the disarmament commission is perhaps an example of that—I do not think that many of the problems outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would arise. Secondly, however, if the bodies are, as is stated in Clause 11, to have a clear operational remit to implement policies on an all-island basis, they will do things—and that means that all the problems to which the noble Lord referred could arise. When the Minister replies, will he make
    1466
    it absolutely clear whether the bodies are mechanisms for co-operation or are intended to get on with the job?
    Lord Dubs: I shall try to make this simple by not entering the complicated areas into which I am being tempted. Yes, it is true that the implementation bodies represent a complicated area of domestic and international law. We believe that this clause enables the Secretary of State, for initial bodies, and the Assembly, for subsequent bodies, to confer all the necessary powers—that is to say, the legal powers of the implementation body with regard to Northern Ireland will be conferred either by the Secretary of State or subsequently by the Assembly and it will have its legal powers for its actions in the Republic conferred by the Irish Parliament. It will therefore have two bodies of law, which will achieve one end; namely, to give the implementation body the powers to act in all parts of Ireland, North and South. Because the legislative basis in the Republic may be different, the legislation in Dublin may take a different form from that in Belfast. However, the position is clear: the body will be buttressed by legislative support from the Assembly and from the Irish Parliament so that it can act freely across all parts of Ireland to give effect to the decisions made.
    As I said earlier, the policy will be established by the North South Ministerial Council, but operational responsibilities will be for the implementation body. It will therefore have the legal basis on which to operate anywhere in Ireland.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: This is an important point, so I do not apologise for pressing the Minister. Perhaps I may take tourism as an example. It is a concrete example. Let us suppose that it were thought to be a good thing in the council that there should be greater promotion of the island of Ireland as a destination for tourism. There is already a body responsible for tourism in Northern Ireland and an active body in the Irish Republic. Is the purpose of a new body to be established on tourism to be the mechanism by which the two would co-operate or is it to become a new, better tourism body, arranging tourism and itself implementing policy and operating in all parts of Ireland?
    Lord Dubs: My understanding is this: the remit of the North South Ministerial Council will include many areas of co-operation. Some methods of co-operation might well be simply bilateral arrangements, such as suggested by the noble Lord, whereby the tourism body in the North would co-operate with the tourism body in the South, but they would remain separate bodies. That would not constitute an implementation body. However—this is purely a hypothetical example to deal with the point—it could be that the North South Ministerial Council decides that it does not need two tourism bodies and says, "Let us have one tourism body to attract tourists from overseas to all parts of Ireland". It would then set up an implementation body which would be charged with promoting tourism in

    1467
    that way. There are two ways of doing it. Clearly, the North South Ministerial Council would in each instance decide the most effective way of achieving such co-operation. There would be an implementation body only if it set up one body to do the work.
    That is a hypothetical example. I do not want to be accused of having tried to suggest the way in which tourism in Ireland should develop in the future—far from it. That is purely an example to deal with the noble Lord's point.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: So, as I understand it, the bodies will have twin legal personalities: they will have one legal personality in the Republic and another legal personality standing next to it under the law of Northern Ireland—that is, the law of the United Kingdom. Let us suppose that, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, suggested, a body relating to tourism wants to enter into a contract with a printer to print some brochures. It may have to enter into two contracts because, as I understand it, it will not have a single legal personality. It will be done under two different bodies of law. People could obviously buy the brochures solely in the north or solely in the south, but someone has to sign the contract as a legal personality and undertake to pay for them. This is an entirely hypothetical example, as the Minister has said, but I believe we shall all need to reflect more carefully on this matter and consider exactly how it will work. I hope that between now and Report stage the Minister will be good enough to write to me explaining the legal framework that is envisaged.
    Lord Dubs: I was about to make that offer. I shall put my comments in writing because this is a fairly complicated matter. Once we enter areas of legal personality and international law, we had better make sure we are accurate.
    Lord Hylton: I hope I can be helpful. I notice that subsection (2)(a) of the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 114 refers in the plural to,
    "the legal capacities of a body corporate".
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am sure that is wonderfully helpful, but I am not quite sure how. I say that with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I have taken it to mean that a body corporate needs a number of different legal capacities in order to operate. No doubt that point will be incorporated in the letter which we look forward to receiving from the Minister. That brings us back to the question of the powers which will be the same or similar in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland and whether that should be written into the Bill. In view of the discussion we have had, I shall withdraw the amendment but we shall give further thought to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw, as an amendment to Amendment No. 114, Amendment No. 114A.
    Amendment No. 114A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 114, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment No. 114 agreed to.
    4.45 p.m.
    Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 115:
    After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—

    CIVIC FORUM
    (".—(1) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make arrangements for obtaining from the Forum its views on social, economic and cultural matters.
    (2) The arrangements so made shall not take effect until after they have been approved by the Assembly.
    (3) In this section "the Forum" means the consultative Civic Forum established in pursuance of paragraph 34 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement.").
    The noble Lord said: These amendments concern the civic forum, one of the bodies provided for in the Belfast agreement for obtaining the views of various sectors of the community, including business, trade unions and the voluntary sector.
    This amendment moves the provisions from the obscurity of Part VII, miscellaneous and general provisions, to a more prominent place in the Bill alongside the other institutions provided for in the agreement. There have also been some minor changes to the provisions. These include omitting the reference to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister obtaining through the forum the views of the community, just in case anyone got the impression that we were seeking to imply in the Bill that the elected representatives in the Assembly were not sufficiently representative of the views of the community which elected them! That is far from the case.
    We have also removed specific references to funding from the provision on the forum. We are considering the general question of funding the institution in the Bill and may introduce amendments at Report stage if these are necessary.
    Amendment No. 345 amends the schedule on transitional provisions in Schedule 12 to ensure that arrangements concerning the civic forum made during the shadow phase of the Assembly carry forward after devolution. I beg to move.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 115, Amendment No. 115A:
    Line 8, after ("established") insert (", by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly,").
    The noble Lord said: This is intended to make clear that the civic forum is to be established by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, which is how I read paragraph 34 of strand one of the agreement. I beg to move.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am a little worried about the poor old civic forum. The Committee will probably have noticed that the Bill completed its passage through the Commons without their noticing that it was absent from the Bill. That went entirely unremarked. We are now restoring it at this stage in the Lords. I suppose it is quite a good principle that if there is no reason to have a body, one should not have it. We have an admirable title in the civic forum. We had a body with a short vestigial life which I imagine played a useful role in an earlier stage of the peace process.

    1469
    I think we need to be quite certain what we want a civic forum for. I believe there is a need for such a body in a Province which has such a weak civic culture. There is perhaps a role for a body called a civic forum to reach out into Northern Ireland society to try to build civic institutions which are the necessary accompaniment to the elaborate constitutional structure we are setting up. Clearly we shall not create a civil society in Northern Ireland simply by having better parliamentary institutions and a better sharing of relationships north and south. It has to be done by animating a greater civic spirit and responsibility in Northern Ireland.
    My slight concern is that the civic forum is an afterthought put in the Belfast agreement for reasons of piety and that it is in this Bill for the same reason. We find ourselves saying that First Ministers are to provide guidelines on the selection. Why could not the civic forum be drawn fairly widely from Northern Ireland society? Why should not certain bodies be established as nominating bodies which could nominate people to it? Why should it not meet in different places around Northern Ireland? Why should it not act as a sounding board for building around the new assembly and the new all-Ireland institutions greater levels of consent and information? Why should it not in some ways act as a public information service giving information from the Assembly?
    I think it would be a great shame if it just reproduces the conventional, cross-community deal represented by the Assembly itself. I do not have the answers and this is probably not the appropriate place to discuss them when we are discussing specific amendments to the Bill. However, I think we should all recognise that at the moment this is a title in search of a role. We have some obligation to try to think what would make a civic forum useful to the developing, and we hope peaceful, society in Northern Ireland.
    Lord Hylton: I agree with a great deal of what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. As someone who is involved to some extent in voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland I very much welcome the coming into being of the civic forum. It may not be terribly well known in this country that Northern Ireland has a wonderfully good structure of community organisations which exist even in the smallest neighbourhoods and villages. That experience should be used to develop and to build up civil society and to help the assembly to cope and to grapple with the difficult problems that it will have to face.
    As to the future role, some of the areas that such a forum might attempt to address would include looking at proposals before they have got as far as being White Papers or draft Bills. It might also consider the consequences of legislation and how it will work in practice and to what extent it may need to be amended, modified or changed completely. Those are the kinds of functions in which such a body could be helpful.
    Lord Fitt: In a debate on an earlier amendment we spoke about clarity. The same subject applies in speaking to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, is right. Very little attention has been given to
    1470
    the forum: how many people will be on it; how it will be funded; where it will sit; whether it will work in competition with the Assembly—that would be one of the worst things that could happen. Above all, we do not want to set up another factory of grievances. There have been too many bodies in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years where everyone has expressed their grievance, political, religious and in relation to all the other divisive events in Northern Ireland. If the forum is to be a positive factor for Northern Ireland, we should know exactly how it will be constituted. How many personnel will be on it? Will Assembly representatives be able to sit on it as well as carrying out their functions in the Assembly? Will they be able to make recommendations to the Assembly? Will they be able to reject or oppose some of the recommendations that come from the Assembly? The phrase, "civic forum", is loaded with all kinds of imponderables.
    The Minister has been helpful in the debates that have taken place on the Bill. He has listened to the concern expressed in this Chamber; he has gone away, examined matters and returned with amendments. I hope that on Report he will be able to give us a further idea as to exactly what the forum is meant to be and what it can be.
    Lord Dubs: Before dealing with the various comments and questions raised, perhaps I may turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. It seeks to make clear that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are responsible for establishing the civic forum.
    We are clear that the responsibility rests with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The clause as it stands makes that clear. If the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have the duty to make arrangements to obtain the forum's views, as is clearly stated, that seems to us to give them also the duty to establish it in the first place. However, I have noted the noble Lord's comments. I should like to consider the matter further and come forward with an amendment on Report if we believe it to be necessary. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the useful contribution he has made. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
    Turning to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, the Commons took note of this matter. It was then included in Clause 64 and we have moved it forward. The Commons did have a chance to consider it.
    Perhaps the more important point is that raised by the noble Lord and by my noble friend Lord Fitt on the specific arrangements for the forum—how it will function and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, made a number of excellent suggestions as to how it might work, the job it might do and how its members might be selected. My noble friend Lord Fitt asked questions on the same matter.
    The key issue is that these are all matters which the shadow Assembly has already invited the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to consider and report on. Under the agreement it is the First Minister and Deputy First Minister who are to establish guidelines for the selection of members of the civic forum. All these

    1471
    matters to do with the civic forum are best considered by the Assembly, which has already begun to consider them.
    The alternative would be for us to ask to set down a blueprint as to the precise way in which the civic forum might be selected and how it might operate. I suggest that that might be going a little far in relation to the responsibilities of this House and indeed of Westminster. I should prefer to have a limited reference to the civic forum, as in the Bill as presently drafted, and to leave it to the Assembly to take these matters further. After all, if the Assembly is not happy about its relationship with the civic forum, the civic forum will not be all that effective. It is not meant to be an alternative body to the Assembly; it is meant to be a helpful way of, as it were, tapping opinion across a whole range of bodies in Northern Ireland. If the civic forum is to work, it must be seen by the Assembly as being helpful to it, and in particular as being helpful to Assembly Ministers. For that reason I should be reluctant to go down the path of specifying more precisely how the civic forum should work. We ought to leave it to the Assembly.
    Lord Skelmersdale: I wonder whether the Minister can answer a question that has just been prompted by his remarks. As he understands the position, namely that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, will set the body up and make arrangements for its operation, presumably they can "unmake" it if they find that it is not useful. Is that the case?
    Lord Dubs: The civic forum was agreed as part of the Good Friday agreement. Given that that will be within the responsibility of the Assembly First Minister, Deputy First Minister and other Ministers, we have to leave it to them. I suppose that theoretically they could. But that would mean that they would be tearing up a part of the Good Friday agreement. Given that the vast majority of Members of the Assembly have supported the Good Friday agreement, I should think that that is not a path down which they would wish to go. I should have thought that in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement they would want to give effect to the proposals for the civic forum.
    Lord Skelmersdale: The Minster has just put his finger on exactly the point I was trying to make. Is it in the power of the Assembly to build on the Good Friday agreement? It seems to me that it should be. That then raises a question as to whether there will be interference with that decision of the Assembly either by the Parliament in London or by the Dail in Dublin.
    Lord Dubs: This is becoming rather hypothetical. Let me restate the position. The civic forum is part of the Good Friday agreement. The majority of politicians elected to the Assembly were elected on the basis of supporting the Good Friday agreement. We fully expect the Assembly, through its Ministers, to establish a civic forum—not in terms of any detail that we set down for them but on the principle that there should be such a
    1472
    forum. The noble Lord asked whether theoretically they could kill it off. I suppose that they could; but there would have to be cross-community voting in the Assembly to achieve such an end.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am sorry to pick the noble Lord up on this point, but that is extremely important. Up to now I have often loyally defended the Government on the sanctity of the Belfast agreement and how we must not detract from it, take parts away from it that we do not like. The Belfast agreement states clearly that there will be a civic forum. Is the Minister now saying that the Assembly can unilaterally remove it?
    Lord Dubs: I said that the debate is becoming theoretical and I do not wish to be taken down this path. The Government's position is clear. We support the totality of the Good Friday agreement and we expect the Assembly to do likewise. Theoretically I suppose that the Assembly could at some future date decide on a cross-party basis to go further or to do different things. But at this stage it is the Government's obligation fully to support the Good Friday agreement and to make it clear that we expect all participants to do so. To go further and look into the distant future is theoretical; it is a trap into which I do not wish to be drawn.
    Lord Skelmersdale: Surely what everyone needs to know is what is the power of the Assembly. The noble Lord seems to have just said: "That is the Belfast agreement; this is the Bill; matters are set in concrete". What a terrible thing to be doing!
    Lord Dubs: I did not say that. I said that in setting up the Assembly we are sticking totally by the Good Friday agreement and we expect Members of the Assembly to do likewise. I then said that perhaps matters would change in the fullness of time. The Assembly would have to make decisions of that sort on a cross-party basis. Clearly, we do not set in concrete all aspects of the way in which the Assembly is to operate. What we are saying is that, here and now, the Good Friday agreement is a test by which we judge these particular actions.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: In the light of the undertaking given some minutes ago by the Minister to reconsider these matters, and particularly Amendment No. 115A, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment No. 115A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 115, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Question, Amendment No. 115 agreed to.
    5 p.m.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 116:
    After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—

    REVIEW OF IMPACT OF ACT ON FUNCTIONS AND COMPOSITION OF PARLIAMENT
    (". The Secretary of State shall publish, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, a review of the impact of this Act on the functions of Parliament in relation to Northern Ireland and on the representation of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons.").
    The noble Lord said: this amendment allows us to raise our heads from the details of the agreement on the new mechanism to be set up in Northern Ireland, the Assembly etc., and look to a more underlying and long-term matter; namely, the English dimension to all of this, otherwise known as the West Lothian question. Trafalgar Day is an excellent day on which to discuss such a matter. I do not know my ancestry in as great detail as many Members of your Lordships' House know theirs, but all the ancestors that I know of are English, and I am a vice-president of the Royal Society of St. George, so at least in this matter I start from that standpoint.
    I believe that the West Lothian question will come back to haunt us over many years if we do not answer it. It asks what is to happen to another place when substantial powers are transferred away from this Parliament to devolved institutions in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    There was a time, not long ago, when substantial powers rested with Stormont as far as Northern Ireland was concerned. What we now know as the West Lothian question was answered in 1920 by a proportionate reduction in the number of Members of the Westminster Parliament elected from Northern Ireland. There were originally 13 constituencies in Northern Ireland, one university constituency and 12 of the conventional kind. Later the university constituency disappeared. Northern Ireland had about two-thirds of the number of Members of Parliament to which it would have been entitled had its representation been on the same basis as that of England. This satisfactory and undisputed response to what we now call the West Lothian question existed until very recently. However, that was an answer to the question when the only devolved part of the United Kingdom was Northern Ireland. We are now moving into a new situation in which Scotland and Wales matters, as well as Northern Ireland matters, will be devolved, though to different extents, from Westminster. That makes the question both larger and more difficult to answer.
    The Government seem so far to have taken the view on the Scotland Bill and in other pronouncements that there is no answer to the West Lothian question and that they will ignore it and hope that it will go away. I do not believe that it will go away. I believe that, on the contrary, it will grow in importance as time goes on and as English people see a substantial number of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Members of Parliament voting in Westminster on English matters when English Members of Parliament no longer vote on those matters when they are devolved to other parts of the United Kingdom.
    One possible way to answer the West Lothian question is to follow the Stormont route and reduce the number of Westminster Members representing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to a proportionately lower number given the population of those three countries in comparison with the population of England.
    Another way to answer it is the so-called in-and-out way whereby Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales would not vote on
    1474
    English matters where those matters are devolved as far as Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales are concerned. That is an extremely complicated way. It appears to be the way favoured by Mr. Tam Dalyell, who has said that, if the Scotland Bill goes through in its present form, he will abstain when English matters which are devolved as far as Scotland is concerned are under discussion. That is his answer to the West Lothian question, which he himself posed in such a strong manner a few years ago.
    There are difficulties with the in-and-out solution. Who will decide which Bills are solely English Bills and which Bills affect other parts of the United Kingdom? In future there will be some Bills which affect England only, some that affect England and Wales, some that affect England, Wales and Scotland, some that affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and some that affect other possible combinations, because some powers are to be given to the Northern Ireland Assembly which are not to be given to the Scottish parliament and vice versa, and the Welsh Assembly seems to have less powers than the others. It would therefore be an extremely complicated system to try to run. In addition, it would lead to problems for the Government if they had a different position as regards their majority in another place on some matters but not others and would lead to great difficulty as between departments. That answer to the question is, therefore, not an easy one.
    An answer apparently favoured by my noble friend Lord Baker is that there should be an English parliament in addition to the devolved assemblies about which we are talking. I believe that that answer, too, has great disadvantages and would lead to a federal constitution for the United Kingdom as a whole. That is not an easy answer, therefore.
    However, we are not looking for a perfect answer, because there is not one. I believe that, had there been a perfect answer, we should have been able to go along that route a long time ago. I believe that we are looking for the least bad option. Above all, I believe that the Government must address this question, because it will not go away. It will be of increasing importance as the years go on and the situation of English Members in another place becomes ever more apparent as the population sees what is happening. I fear that this is just one aspect of this process, particularly in regard to Scotland and Wales, that heads towards a break-up of the United Kingdom, which I would not want to see. I believe that all parts of the United Kingdom, as presently constituted, gain strength from one another, and I wish to see it continue in its present form. But the West Lothian question will have to be addressed by the Government at some point and will have to be answered by the Westminster Parliament. I beg to move.
    Lord Monson: Although I usually agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on Northern Ireland matters, I cannot do so on this occasion, although I strongly agree with him that the West Lothian question is extremely important and must be answered soon. The main reason why I cannot agree with the amendment is that there is no corresponding clause in the Scotland Bill. Scotland is to have approximately the same degree

    1475
    of self-government as Stormont had before 1972, yet there are no plans to reduce Scotland's representation at Westminster to Stormont levels, which would give Scotland only 39 or 40 seats. Instead, Scotland will be brought into line with England and Wales, albeit far too slowly, reducing Scottish representation to no fewer than 57 or 58 seats in the other place. As the Northern Ireland Assembly will have far fewer powers than the Scottish Parliament will, having no powers over criminal matters, for example, there can be no case for reducing the Province's representation at Westminster.
    Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Cope has raised a very important matter and has justifiably put it into a wide context. I should welcome the co-operation of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, on this matter. He and I served on a committee of the other place which had to consider how Northern Ireland was to be represented there after the Stormont Parliament and Government were brought to an end. The Bill is not changing that matter. Northern Ireland will have its own Assembly and will be very fully represented in the House of Commons.
    As my noble friend has said, it is right that within a reasonable time of the Assembly coming into operation Parliament should consider the question of the representation of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons. All of this is linked up with the West Lothian question. A number of my noble friends in this House and old friends who are no longer in Parliament who were Northern Ireland Members were very restrained when Parliament legislated on matters that did not affect Northern Ireland but the rest of the United Kingdom. That was very splendid of them. However, we do not know how it will work in future given the present representation. I cast no slur on the present representation of Northern Ireland in the Commons, but it may be that some of them will be overzealous. It is right that the Secretary of State should be under an obligation to report to Parliament as to how matters have gone.
    The broader point is that we are setting up a new kind of assembly which is different from the old Stormont Parliament and is necessarily a little experimental. On the advice of the Secretary of State we should take cognisance of how the new Assembly is working. I therefore hope that the Government will give a favourable response to the argument put forward by my noble friend whether or not they decide that his amendment is the best way to meet the case.
    Lord Hardy of Wath: I shall not detain the Committee for very long. Perhaps I should say a word or two particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the exercise that led to an increase in the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland. Like him, I also served on the Speakers Conference, as my noble friend Lord Fitt has reminded me. The West Lothian question appears to emerge at points that are convenient to those who have little representation in the areas that may benefit, but the fact remains that for a considerable part of the past quarter of a century the country has been
    1476
    seen as being governed from the south-eastern corner of England. Those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and those whom I represented in Yorkshire, have felt increasingly divorced from the administration and capital in the south-east. For that reason there may well be an argument that if democracy is to continue and the sense of "country" is to develop and be maintained, there may be a case for over-representation. I do not say that this should apply for all time or that it should be cast in stone, but if people are to retain confidence in their community, society and government that consideration should be borne in mind.
    A moment or two ago I was reminded by my noble friend Lord Walker of Doncaster that the previous administration was not averse to persuading the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and some of his colleagues to go into the Lobby with them on issues that had very little to do with Northern Ireland. We heard very little about the West Lothian question in that context. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and his noble friends accept that while these matters may not be permanent or eternal, there must be a modicum of flexibility to enable this Bill successfully to complete its passage through Parliament.
    5.15 p.m.
    The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord opposite has missed a cardinal point. The previous administration governed a United Kingdom. In those circumstances it was a unitary state. If, as has happened since the war, there is a left wing or Labour Government imposed on the rest of the United Kingdom by over-represented Wales and Scotland it does not matter. It does not matter in the slightest if those who live in the south-east have imposed on them a government of which they do not approve. In a unitary kingdom that is perfectly reasonable. I agree with the noble Lord that the further away one is from the centre of things the stronger the case for over-representation. In a unitary state that does not matter.
    The difficulty arises—it is more difficult in Scotland than in Northern Ireland—where one has the slightly ridiculous situation in which the Labour Party forbids anyone to vote for it and will not put forward candidates in Northern Ireland. Therefore, all that the Northern Ireland MPs can ever do is represent a small interest in what is in effect parish council politics. I believe that that is extremely unhealthy for Northern Irish MPs.
    I should like to return to the days when Prime Ministers represented constituencies in Ireland as they did in the early part of the 19th century. I believe—I may be wrong—that at the time of the corn laws Peel represented Trim or somewhere like that. Those Members represented Irish seats after the Act of Union. I do not mind that. If I were an MP and my base was such that I had only a Northern Irish view, I would not feel that I was participating sufficiently in the whole of the United Kingdom. It is a disgrace that both my noble friends on the Front Bench and the not quite so friendly noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber should forbid people to stand either as Conservatives or Labour Members of Parliament for County Down, Fermanagh or South Tyrone.

    1477
    There is another incredible danger arising from the West Lothian question. For the sake of argument, let us assume that after the next election there is a Conservative majority in England but a Labour majority in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is perfectly fair in the unitary state. Let us assume further that the Tam Dalyells of this world do not vote on the question of English education and the Government of the day lose on a point that they believe to be important which gives rise to a vote of confidence. That vote of confidence in the Government of the whole of the United Kingdom will be imposed on the English by the Welsh, the Scots and perhaps even Northern Irish MPs, none of whom has the slightest interest in the education system in Biddlecombe-under-Frome in Bassetshire or somewhere like that. That is dangerous.
    We should also remember that one of the reasons why England has quite frequently revolted against its kings is that Irish troops have been used, for example, by Richard II, Charles I and James II. Macaulay refers to the Irish troop garrison in Southwark. That resulted from an imposition by outsiders on the English in this context. I concede that the Irish have every right to get cross about English troops in Shannon, Donegal and Munster. But the English unfortunately—I use the word advisedly—are the vast majority of those in the United Kingdom. The whole aspect of the Bill shows the haphazard, lackadaisical and ill thought out process in the mind of Her Majesty's present advisers to the constitutional change in the United Kingdom. They do not have the faintest idea of what they are doing or of the consequences.
    If I am not here in six months' time I shall still be moaning about their incompetence on the constitution. I have a feeling that that is exactly what will happen. It fills me with foreboding.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: We owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for putting down the amendment which has introduced into our rather pedestrian proceedings peals of constitutional thunder which have relieved us of our labours for the past 20 minutes or so.
    One would have to have a heart of stone not to feel great sympathy for the noble Lord on the Conservative Front Bench, agonising about these constitutional issues and torn between being a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party and an English nationalist party, knowing that the logical conclusion is federalism but also that thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, federalism has become an "f' word not to be used. He may yet find himself with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in a federalist position—a position adopted by this party for a long time. However, I shall not detain noble Lords on that subject.
    Is the Minister aware that the House of Commons Select Committee on Procedure has already set in hand a review of the interrelationship of legislation in the Assembly and the Westminster Parliament? I think I am right in saying that the Northern Ireland Assembly has
    1478
    set up a committee to feed into that process. At a more practical level, will that not in part deal with the purpose of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope?
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: It does not seem to me unreasonable that there should be a review after a year of the impact of the legislation. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said. Some provision may be in hand to produce a result. But with the creation of the British-Irish Council and a number of other bodies with which we shall be constantly interacting internationally on the affairs of Northern Ireland, we should derive benefit from having Irish Members sitting in the House of Commons who will be conversant with the day-to-day problems.
    I recognise that the Assembly will have its own important part to play. But it does not seem unreasonable that after a year stock should be taken of the impact of this entirely new world which we are entering as regards the Irish political scene: that we should have a review and consider the result.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: It is true that in former times there was some misunderstanding over the attitude of my party. In self-defence I can only say that as a party we tended to vote on the merits of the item before us. Under my reign, we tended to incur the displeasure of people who criticised me for keeping, first, a Labour Prime Minister in power for two years, and, later, a Conservative Prime Minister in power for two years longer than might otherwise have been the case. When I was asked at that time, usually every week, "When will you bring down the Government?"—of whichever colour—I had this formula, which I think I repeated in my sleep occasionally: "Provided that Her Majesty's Government are governing in the best interests of the United Kingdom in general and Northern Ireland in particular, we see no good reason for terminating the life of this Parliament prematurely".
    I had not intended to contribute to this debate but I have been stimulated by comments from many noble Lords. I wish to keep on the right side of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Now that he has raised the standard of St. George, there is the danger that if we annoy him too much he may take England out of the United Kingdom. London is almost certainly bound to go when Ken Livingstone is elected!
    When the 1978 Speaker's Conference was set up by the Callaghan Government, the late Enoch Powell and at least three noble Lords at that time avoided pressing a case for representation on the scale of Scotland. Without great difference of opinion, we decided to opt for the same scale of representation as Wales rather than Scotland. We saw the possibility in the future that Scotland would be given a form of devolution, perhaps leading to home rule, or perhaps independence. We in Northern Ireland did not want our scale of representation thrown into that melting pot. Looking with hindsight, I believe that we were probably prudent to do so. The Speaker's Conference report referred to 17 or 18 members, as the Boundary Commission thought fit. In mentioning the word "fit", perhaps I may say that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, wanted even fewer members—ideally none!

    1479
    We should like to consider the establishment of a Select Committee for what I would call the devolved regions of the United Kingdom. I am glad to be reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that steps are being taken to study the impact of devolution on other parts of the United Kingdom, I hope including Northern Ireland. Given that for the time being the United Kingdom Parliament remains the sovereign Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom and will be responsible for a great many of the matters of importance throughout the United Kingdom, it seems sensible, practical and workable to have a Select Committee considering the relationship between the sovereign Parliament and the three new devolved assemblies and government.
    Lord Fitt: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has opened up a can of worms. If I were to go into reasons for an increase or decrease of seats in Northern Ireland it would throw the Government Front Bench into the frenzy of a nervous breakdown. The only people who would be more concerned about that would be the Members of Parliament in another place representing Northern Ireland constituencies. Any diminution in the number of their seats would have an effect on them. Whatever may be said in public. I do not think that anyone wishes to see a diminution in the number of seats. Two Northern Ireland MPs at present do not attend—Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. Whatever decision may be taken, I do not think that Northern Ireland representation will have any effect on the complexion of a British Government for the next 10 years. It is highly unlikely that Northern Ireland MPs can decide what the complexion of the government will be.
    My noble friend Lord Hardy, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others—many are here as colleagues—attended the Speaker's Conference in 1978 under the chairmanship of the then Speaker to decide whether there should be an increase in the number of seats held by Northern Ireland constituencies. In one of my usual roles in politics in Northern Ireland, I was in a minority of one. I said month after month that there should be no increase. Everyone else—Labour, Conservative and Liberal Members—said that there should be an increase from 12 to 17. When Stormont came into being on the partition of Ireland in 1920, it was given certain devolutionary powers. It was in control of health, social services, housing and employment—all the issues which affected the everyday living of people in Northern Ireland.
    I remember when I first came to Westminster in 1966 running in and out of the Table Office, as it was then, trying to put down Questions on Northern Ireland—about housing, jobs, discrimination and social deprivation—and continuously being told, "They are matters for the Northern Ireland Parliament and cannot be dealt with at Westminster". I was told that all I could talk about here was defence and financial matters. I had a very frustrating time trying to break the convention—
    1480
    and it was only a convention; there was nothing legal about it—that one did not discuss matters which had been reserved to the Northern Ireland Parliament.
    In 1972, the Speaker's Conference was set up on the abolition of Stormont. Sure enough, the Unionist Party, as it was then, under the joint leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and Enoch Powell, used all their political guile—particularly Enoch Powell—to keep the Labour government in power until they had what they wanted: the Speaker's Conference.
    I remember the day it was set up and seeing the names of those who would be members. Martin Flannery, a Sheffield MP, said to me, "You would be as well not going there. They're going to increase the number of seats". We knew before the conference had even met or deliberated that there would be an increase in the number of seats from 12 to 17. I thought that the additional seats would go to my opponents in the Unionist Party. As it turned out, they did not; some of them went to the SDLP.
    If there were to be any diminution in the number of seats there would have to be a re-drawing of the boundaries. In Northern Ireland, boundaries for local government and parliamentary elections are drawn far more frequently than anywhere else because they have to take into account where the Catholics, the Protestants and the Sinn Feiners live and sometimes where Alliance Party supporters live in Cherry Valley and North Down. All those factors must be taken into account when drawing the boundaries.
    At present, we have 18 seats, two of the Members not attending. I do not want to cause a revolution in Northern Ireland, but if the boundaries were re-drawn I would not be too sure about Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness sticking by their pledge not to take up their parliamentary seats. That is a matter for them. If they will take advice from me—and they certainly will not—it is to take up their seats because, after all, they are elected by their constituency voters.
    Northern Ireland was given 12 seats. The way in which the boundaries were delineated in the run-up to the abolition of Stormont in 1972 almost assured that the Unionist Party held those 12 seats for the most part. As a result of the divisions which existed among the nationalists, there were always split votes which meant that the Unionists would always win. When I won West Belfast in 1966 it was a miracle and they thought that I was a man from Mars. The Unionists could not believe it, but I won it and held it for five elections.
    The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, provides that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should have a say in whether or not different issues would have arisen with the involvement of the Assembly. That would not be a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; it would be for the Prime Minister of the day to decide whether to change their representation. The Secretary of State should not have the authority to decide. Although I see the ramifications of introducing the West Lothian question into Northern Ireland, I do not believe that Northern Ireland representation will have any effect on representation at Westminster or the complexion of the Government for at least 10 or perhaps 20 years.
    5.30 p.m.
    Lord Dubs: The House is full of temptation this afternoon. There has been temptation to discuss the West Lothian question, temptation to discuss Labour Party or Conservative Party representation in Northern Ireland; temptation to discuss the constitutional changes in this country with the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly and so forth; temptation to discuss the thesis of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, about supporting the Government or not; and even temptation to discuss English devolution. I shall resist all those temptations—perhaps they are for another day—because they go way beyond the amendment before us.
    Of course we will all watch what the Assembly does. We will be fascinated by how it works. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I have seen it and I am sure that your Lordships will be interested to see how it proceeds with its deliberations.
    The intention behind the amendment is apparent; namely, in the wake of the Bill being passed to examine whether there is a case for modifying the functions of the Westminster Parliament in relation to Northern Ireland and altering Northern Ireland representation at Westminster. While we understand the thinking underlying the amendment, the Government would not wish to commit themselves on the face of the Bill to completing and publishing such a review within 12 months of the Bill being passed.
    Under the Belfast agreement, the Government are committed to carrying out a general review of the arrangements following devolution, including the details of electoral arrangements and of the Assembly's procedures. But it surely makes more sense for any such review to take place only after the devolved institutions have bedded in. We need a little more time and do not wish to provide on the face of the Bill that the review process shall be carried out within 12 months. I believe that Members of the Committee will agree.
    Nor am I sure whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is necessarily the best person to carry out the review. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, has already referred to the Procedure Select Committee of the House of Commons, which has already commenced a review of the impact of devolution in general on working practices in Westminster. I suggest that that might be the most sensible forum to discuss many of the issues which noble Lords have raised today. A Select Committee for the devolved regions of the United Kingdom has been suggested. Again, that is a matter for the other place, but a forum where such deliberations could well take place.
    As regards Northern Ireland representation in Westminster, there are no plans to reduce it. Unlike Scotland, Northern Ireland is not over-represented. The legislation provides for between 16 and 18 constituencies, with 17 as the optimum. The Boundary Commission recommended 18 constituencies, the basis on which the 1997 election was fought and on which the election arrangements for the assembly were founded. The average size of constituency in Northern Ireland is 66,000, not far off the English average of just over 69,000 and a lot higher than that for Scotland of
    1482
    55,000. So on an arithmetic basis, there is no case for considering changing the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland.
    However, there are a number of other reasons why Northern Ireland Members of Parliament at Westminster will have a significant role to play. Initially, as your Lordships are aware, important powers relating to criminal law, the police and prisons will remain at Westminster. Northern Ireland Members will rightly have a close interest in such issues. Indeed, I believe that Parliament will not wish to take a complete hands-off attitude to the Assembly and I am sure that people in Northern Ireland will welcome the close interest and support of the rest of the UK in the path on which they are embarking.
    Furthermore, there may be many politicians, particularly on the unionist side in Northern Ireland, who would not wish to have their significance reduced to a lower representation in this Parliament. Finally, Parliament will continue to have a role in legislating for Northern Ireland in a number of respects. For all those reasons, I believe that it is right and proper that Northern Ireland parliamentary representation in the other place should continue. Indeed, I believe that there is no need to set on the face of the Bill a review in a year's time. The Government are already committed to carrying out such a review when it is most appropriate.
    Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies, will the noble Lord bear in mind that it is not good enough to leave it to chance as to whether the Secretary of State will express her views to Parliament about how the Northern Ireland Assembly has worked? Is it not better that she should be asked to review the matter and let Parliament know the conclusions?
    Lord Dubs: Under the Belfast agreement the Government are committed to carry out such a review. That is a firm commitment. But we do not consider it appropriate to conduct such a review within 12 months. We should consider the most appropriate time when we know how the Assembly is working. I am sure that is the way in which most Members of the Committee would wish us to proceed.
    The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may refer to something he said which started an alarm bell ringing in my brain. He said that Parliament will take a very close overview of the Assembly. Perhaps the noble Lord can elucidate. I got the impression that that remark implied that if Her Majesty's Ministers did not like what the Northern Ireland Assembly did, irrespective of what the Assembly thought it was going to do, Ministers would overturn it without a justified fiat. Is that the case?
    Lord Dubs: No, that is not the case. I do not believe I said that. I certainly did not intend it. In a general sense I believe that Parliament will show a great deal of interest in the way in which the constitutional changes in this country take place and how they are working out. I am sure that Parliament will want to discuss such

    1483
    matters at intervals. It may be that the Select Committee of the other place will wish to keep such matters under review. That is all I meant.
    Lord Fitt: This is a matter of tremendous importance. I have already spoken of the convention which existed between 1920 and 1972 when it was impossible to ask questions about specific subjects over which the Stormont Parliament maintained control. These were unemployment, housing, health and social services and all the myriad issues under its control. That meant that one could not ask questions at Westminster because those matters were reserved to the Northern Ireland Parliament. When the Northern Ireland Assembly is set up, will a new convention be created or will we still be able to ask questions at Westminster about health, social services and all the other issues that are to be taken over by the Assembly? Will a new convention be set up to the effect that these matters cannot be talked about because they are for the new Assembly?
    Lord Dubs: I do not believe that it is up to the Government to say what issues should be discussed either in this House or the other place. It is a matter for those responsible for the procedures of this House and the other place to decide what may be debated. At this stage I would not wish to suggest a new convention—far from it.
    The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to return to the issue. Of course it is for the Government to say what they will answer for in relation to the powers they have over the subjects of the Queen and of the United Kingdom. One cannot just say, "We do not know whether we are going to answer questions on this or that". That is slaphappy to the degree of irresponsibility.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, before the Minister replies. The noble Lord has raised a very interesting point and I would like to enlighten him about precedents. When I came to the other place in 1970, for two years I could do nothing but ask questions about defence and taxation. For some reason I could also ask questions about the obscure issue of imperial pensions, whatever they were. Then the shutters came down when Stormont was abolished and everything was returned to Westminster.
    It will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that in 1974–75 the power-sharing executive was installed. Immediately that body took effect and began its work, the day after I returned with my usual questions on agriculture, education and everything else, the young Clerk in the Table Office said, "I am sorry, you have to address that particular query to Mr. Faulkner or Mr. Fitt, who are now in charge".
    5.45 p.m.
    Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may repeat what I said earlier. The House of Commons Procedure Committee is considering many of these matters. I believe it is prudent
    1484
    for us to see the outcome of its deliberations before asking any one else to pronounce on how we might go forward.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: We have had an interesting debate on this question. At one point I thought we were eavesdropping on a meeting of the Speaker's Conference old comrades association. That is one of the wonders of this House. The experience which has been on show in the past few minutes of this debate has been valuable to us.
    I shall respond to some of what has been said without attempting to reply to the whole debate. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that my amendment should have been drawn in wider terms to cover Scotland. I tried to do that, but the Long Title of the Bill confines the issue to Northern Ireland matters. That is why the amendment is drawn in a rather narrow form. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, suggested that I was trying to hold up this Bill as a result, but the amendment does not do that. It asks for a report in 12 months time. It does not hold up the Bill or the whole process of setting up the Assembly. The amendment asks for reflection on the matter.
    My noble friend Lord Onslow suggested that the Conservative Party as well as the Labour Party somehow forbade candidates standing in Northern Ireland. That is not so. On the contrary the Conservative Party produced candidates but, I have to admit, without any great degree of success. Nevertheless, they had my support on occasions, and perhaps that is the reason they were not successful. They stood as Conservatives for Parliament and local government as well, and may they continue to do so with increased success in the future.
    The noble Lord, Lord Holme, accused me of being frightened of federation on account of that word. That is not so. But I believe that a federation that consisted of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be very unbalanced. That is why I do not believe that to be a very attractive route.
    The question which underlies all this is what is going to happen in respect of the West Lothian question. I was careful not to advance a single answer to it, but several for the Committee to choose from, as it were. My intention was to put the question in the Northern Ireland context, and that has been achieved. Whether or not we were able to carry an amendment of this character, we shall all have to return to this matter, including the Government and the Secretary of State. Perhaps I should have included the Prime Minister in the amendment instead of the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, suggested, because inevitably he will be drawn into the issue.
    This matter will not only affect Northern Ireland, but the answers to the West Lothian question as regards Scotland will affect Northern Ireland. There is no getting away from that, because one hinges on the other. It is a very difficult question. As he said, the Minister resisted temptation. He said that there were no plans at this time, but the Government will have to review the matter both in the context of the Belfast agreement in specifically Northern Ireland terms and also in response

    1485
    to the Select Committee in another place and public pressure as time goes on. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Alderdice Lord Alderdice moved Amendment No. 116A:
    After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—

    GROUNDS OF STORMONT ESTATE.
    (" . The grounds of the Stormont Estate shall only be used for events other than those authorised by resolution of the Assembly where permission has been granted by the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission.").
    The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 194 to 199, which also stand in my name and refer to Clause 75. In so doing let me declare an interest. Some Members of the Committee may be aware that in June this year I was elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly as a Member for the East Belfast constituency in which the Stormont estate is situated. Therefore, unusually for a Member of your Lordships' House, this is a matter which I can regard personally as a constituency matter.
    After my election I was appointed initial Presiding Officer of the Assembly. As such I feel that it is inappropriate during my tenure of that office to speak in your Lordships' House on issues which might be contentious in Northern Ireland or which are or may become the responsibility of the Assembly.
    As initial Presiding Officer, I am also chairman of the shadow Assembly Commission, a body analogous in a designate form to the Commission of the other place. The purpose of tabling these probing amendments—their rather inelegant construction, particularly Amendment No. 116A, reveals them as probing amendments—is at the request of my colleagues on that Assembly Commission. Let me explain to the Committee why I do so.
    First of all, I must set out the background to the concerns. One of the first acts of the Northern Ireland Parliament in 1921, when it was established, was to look for a site for the new government buildings. The site at Stormont on the outskirts of Belfast was chosen and Parliament Buildings erected, at a cost to the Treasury on this side of the water, as a gift from the rest of the United Kingdom to the people of Northern Ireland, and opened in November 1932. The land and estate were transferred under the Stormont Regulation and Government Properties Act 1933 to the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance to be held, retained and used for the accommodation of Parliament and public departments.
    In those days the notion of Parliamentary Commissions established as bodies corporate was not envisaged. Indeed, it was almost 50 years later when the House of Commons Commission was established. This Bill and the Scotland Bill make provision for the establishment of relevant commissions for the newly devolved bodies. It is surprising therefore that the old system of vesting ownership in a government department is contained in the Bill. It is even more remarkable, as Erskine May points out, that since 1992, as a result of a report by Sir Robin Ibbs, each House of this Parliament takes full responsibility for managing its
    1486
    own internal administration. This involved in particular taking over from the Department of the Environment responsibility for the maintenance of the fabric of the Palace of Westminster and the Parliamentary estate. In other words, the maintenance, repairs, works services and all matters which were previously the responsibility of the Department of the Environment have come directly within the responsibility of the House of Commons Commission and are borne on its vote. It is remarkable that, given this development, the Bill takes the retrograde step of vesting the responsibility, the ownership and the management in the hands of the Department of the Environment, not in the hands of the Assembly Commission which the Bill establishes. Furthermore, the Bill establishes it as a reserved matter of the Department of the Environment—in other words, although changes may take place in Northern Ireland there is nothing that the Northern Ireland Assembly can do to address this matter subsequently.
    Other matters follow. There has been no decision yet on whether there will be a Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, as Members of the Committee will know. It is for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the Assembly to put forward a report to the Assembly on the number, type and form of departments that there might be, and for the Assembly to vote on the issues. There is a real question as to whether the current Department of the Environment in its present form will continue or whether it will be divided up into a number of departments. If that were to be the case—and it is not altogether an unlikely scenario—then the Assembly could not regulate for the placing of the responsibility for this matter in one of the new elements of the Department of the Environment because it is a reserved matter. It could legislate for a change of department. It could legislate to get rid of the Department of the Environment. But it could not deal with one of the responsibilities of the Department of the Environment.
    Furthermore, planning permission in Northern Ireland—unlike the situation on this side of the water—is not a local government matter. On the issue of the prime site, in political terms, in Northern Ireland, the ownership of the site would be vested in the Department of the Environment; any development of the site would be with the Department of the Environment; any planning permission required would be with the Department of the Environment; and even in respect of its consideration as an historic building, the historic buildings branch of the Department of the Environment would have the decision. No other government department and no other level of government in Northern Ireland would have the capacity to monitor what was happening on that site.
    In the new system of government for Northern Ireland there is no collective Cabinet responsibility. Ministers will be elected in proportion to the number of Members they have in the Assembly. There is no necessity—and some would even speculate little likelihood—for collegiality among all the Ministers. It is therefore quite possible that the estate, the very seat of government in Northern Ireland, could become a matter of internecine squabbling and dispute between the Minister of the

    1487
    Environment, if such there continued to be, and other members of the Executive with whom he or she might disagree. That is a completely inappropriate eventuality but one that it is not entirely difficult to foresee.
    It therefore seems to the shadow commission, of which I am the chairman—and let us not forget that the shadow commission has been elected on a cross-community basis by the Northern Ireland Assembly—that it would be much better if the whole estate were to come under the ownership of the commission after the appointed day, although some elements of its use and management might be delegated to a relevant government department.
    One further issue causes unease among my colleagues on the commission and Members of the Assembly. Under Clause 75 the Secretary of State is empowered to require the Department of the Environment to make available, for whatever purpose the Secretary of State may wish, any accommodation or facilities—other than the Parliament Buildings—within the Stormont estate. The shadow Assembly Commission is wholly supportive of the view that the Secretary of State should have accommodation for herself, her staff and her colleagues, and all that is necessary, on-site. Of this there is absolutely no question. It is vital for the functioning of the new arrangements that the Secretary of State, the new Executive, the Assembly as a whole and relevant civil service departments are in close proximity to each other.
    However, the Secretary of State has also shown that she has an interest in holding rock concerts and other open-air events in the parliamentary estate. Some of these—such as the recent Elton John concert—are excellent. They are welcome, successful events. But the fact that any successor to the current Secretary of State may—without any prior consultation with the Assembly or its commission—simply require the Department of the Environment to make available any accommodation and facilities, temporary or permanent, has created a degree of uneasiness in the shadow commission.
    It is clear that there could easily be a conflict between leisure activities going on outside on the front lawn of Stormont and parliamentary and government activities going on inside. Some of your Lordships might say that this is simply Assembly Members insisting that if there is entertainment to be provided they should have exclusive propriety over providing the entertainment. But it is much more serious than that. People who live in the area have concerns about what happens on the estate. Both they—my own constituents, people in the area—and the Assembly Members would be astonished if the Northern Ireland Assembly did not have any say about what went on in the grounds of their own Assembly building.
    As I have noted in correspondence to the Secretary of State, I am sure there is bound to be a way in which all the interests can be accommodated. Much more difficult and controversial matters have been accommodated in other agreements that we have reached. I have no doubt that this matter can be resolved, too. I very much hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to clarify the
    1488
    matter in a way that the Bill manifestly does not. That is the purpose of these probing amendments. I beg to move.
    6 p.m.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am sure we would all agree that if the Assembly is to gain respect as a governing body it is surely right and proper that the standing of the estate should be restored, particularly in the aftermath of certain carnival events in the grounds. I wonder how the curtilage of what the noble Lord referred to as the whole estate is defined. Would Stormont House and Stormont Castle be included, or would that perhaps have the effect of downgrading the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as a tenant?
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. In the course of describing the role, as planned, of the Department of the Environment in its various guises, the noble Lord revealed what not everyone in Great Britain has appreciated over the past few years. I refer to the extent to which direct rule has been very direct and very complete. Until now, under direct rule, the Department of the Environment has had all those powers.
    Like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I hesitate at the phrase "the whole Stormont estate". It does not seem to be logical or very wise that Stormont Castle, Stormont House and the government buildings that lie below them should be included in the part to be controlled by the commission. But it does seem that the commission has a good case for controlling Parliament Buildings itself and the main part of the fine grounds, down to the two entrance lodges, particularly as Amendment No. 116A refers to controlling events which may occur on the terrace in front of Parliament Buildings.
    I have occasionally attended events there—band concerts by the RUC and so on—with great pleasure. It is a wonderful setting for such events and I hope that they will continue. However, it should be, I am sure, the commission in future which gives permission and makes the arrangements for such events to happen from time to time when possible, rather than the Department of the Environment, if such a department is set up. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has put his finger on an important matter. I trust that the Government will be able to respond at least fairly favourably.
    The Earl of Onslow: I rise only to say that the Department of the Environment has no say in what happens in West Clandon village hall; it has no say in what happens in Guildford town hall; and it has no say in what happens in Surrey County Council. It seems rather odd that it has these draconian powers over Stormont. If I were from Northern Ireland, I would be very cross about it.
    Lord Dubs: It is a pleasure to have the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, back with us. I appreciate the constraints under which he will make contributions in the House in future. Nevertheless, it is good to see him

    1489
    here today. On the last occasion I saw him he was presiding over the Assembly, and he did that very effectively.
    I assure the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that there is no intention on the Government's part to interfere with the right of the Northern Ireland Assembly, through the Northern Ireland departments, to control and manage all government property in the transferred field. For example, we intend to table an amendment to paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to limit the reservation of government property to that property which belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, or which belongs to a department of the Government of the United Kingdom, or is held in trust for Her Majesty for the purpose of such a department. All other property of the Northern Ireland departments will become a transferred matter, thus avoiding what could have been an undesirable fetter on the Assembly. We shall return to this point later.
    Clause 75 deals with property held in trust or used for the purposes of the previous Northern Ireland Assembly or partly for that purpose and partly for other purposes. This essentially refers to the Stormont estate, but that is actually held in trust for the purposes of the old Stormont Parliament and the public departments in Northern Ireland rather than for the previous Assembly. So the Government will be introducing an amendment to Clause 75 to put beyond doubt that the clause is intended to refer to the Stormont estate. The Assembly commission will be responsible for whatever property, staff and services are required for the Assembly's purposes. That will certainly include Parliament Buildings itself, but the commission will have no capacity to hold land for the purpose of the public service in Northern Ireland and can have no jurisdiction over those parts of the Stormont estate which are not required for the purposes of the Assembly. The clause vests control of such property in the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and makes clear that in future, subject to one exception, all such property shall be applied for the purposes of the Assembly or such other purposes as the department may determine. As the Department of the Environment will be accountable to the Assembly, that will give the Assembly fairly comprehensive control.
    The exception to which I referred is found in Clause 75(2), which provides that the Secretary of State may require the department to make available to him or to her any premises or facilities which fall within the scope of the clause except Parliament Buildings itself, subject to payment of such charges as the Secretary of State and the department may agree.
    The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, acknowledges the likely need for the Secretary of State to have suitable accommodation on the Stormont estate. I am delighted to hear that he senses no widespread objection to that. It would facilitate the kind of close and constructive working relationship with the new institutions which the Government certainly want to develop. He expressed concern, however, about the implications of the word "facilities". I can assure him that the term was not included with any ulterior motive. It is the language of the equivalent provision in the 1973 Act and simply reflects the likely need for ancillary services to be made
    1490
    available to the Secretary of State along with any office accommodation he or she may require. I believe that the term should therefore remain in the Bill.
    However, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the sole intention behind the clause is to enable the Secretary of State to obtain appropriate and convenient office accommodation and support services on the Stormont estate and that there is no intention on our part that the terms of the clause should be used to override the views of the Assembly on what should be the appropriate use of the Stormont estate as a whole. To do otherwise would fly in the face of the principle of devolution. Indeed, in general, I and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would expect any arrangements made between the Secretary of State and the Department of the Environment to be reached by agreement following consultation and to be generally acceptable to all interested parties, including the Assembly. I trust therefore that, with those assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
    Lord Alderdice: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I hope he appreciates that, with regard to accommodation for the Secretary of State, the noble Lord and his colleagues, staff, and so on, there is no sense of anything other than a welcome and a feeling that we all wish to work together.
    However, there are some practical problems. The Bill states that Parliament Buildings is the only place that is exempt. I do not need to tell Members of your Lordships' House that when one comes to work in a building where one parks one's car is a rather important issue. It will be no surprise to your Lordships to know that, apart from the functioning of the Assembly chamber itself, office accommodation within the building and car parking space outside it are matters that have preoccupied myself and my colleagues considerably over the past few weeks.
    As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, indicated, the question of curtilage is critical. According to the Bill, it is Parliament Buildings alone. Therefore, the Assembly commission will have no right to decide anything about who should and who should not use the car parking spaces immediately outside the building. In practical terms, we have been doing that, but there is a real question as to whether the Bill gives us the right to do so. When we move beyond that, we are immediately into the question of the driveways, as to who can park on them and who cannot, where and when.
    Indeed, there are questions of security. Just yesterday we were honoured to have a visit from the President of the Czech Republic, President Václav Havel. Recently we have had visits by President Clinton and the Prime Minister. It is of great importance that the Assembly commission should be able to make arrangements properly and decently for such guests. It needs to have some say over what happens in relation to the driveways; whether the grass is cut; questions of security and so on. And yet it is quite clear that we have no say in that. It must be done at arm's length through the Department of the Environment. Our experience of that department, whether recently or over a long period

    1491
    of time, is not such as to inspire us to believe that everything will be, as they say, hunky-dory in making sure that matters are all to rights.
    It would be quite possible to say that an element of the parliamentary estate—that portion which is not being used for other buildings which involves the driveways, the lawnways and so on which directly surround Parliament Buildings itself—could be identified and that portion of property which is entirely appropriate to Parliament Buildings and the functioning of the Assembly would come under the remit of the commission. That is not necessarily a complex business.
    Of course, there is the question of Stormont House, Stormont Castle and whether they may be appropriate settings for the new executive which will quite clearly need extensive accommodation outside of Parliament Buildings. In the past, when there was a Northern Ireland administration, it used Stormont Castle. Apparently it is undergoing renovations but in future there may be a wish to use the castle. Those are not specifically matters for the Assembly commission. The commission's concern is not just with Parliament Buildings but its surroundings—the car parks, drives, lawns, gardens and so on. Those are all matters which are associated directly with Parliament Buildings and would affect its functioning and its proper keeping in order. Those matters should be the responsibility of the Assembly commission.
    It is a complex legal matter which goes back to a number of Acts of the Northern Ireland Parliament and subsequently back to 1933. A number of the comments which the Minister has made about technical changes which he hopes to introduce in respect of Clause 75 and others are matters which the commission and I shall wish to study closely. There has been a reasonably full airing of these matters. I shall be content to withdraw the amendment but I shall reserve my right, on my own behalf and on behalf of the commission, to return to the issue at a later stage if we are not able to work out matters satisfactorily.
    Lord Dubs: I want to be as helpful as I am able to be. The reference to Parliament Buildings simply excludes the Secretary of State from making a request. It does not imply that the commission's writ is limited to Parliament Buildings. The commission is charged under Clause 22(4) with providing the property or services required by the Assembly. I hope that that goes some way towards helping the noble Lord.
    Lord Alderdice: The noble Lord's comment is extremely helpful because it opens up possibilities which we may be able to explore at a fairly early stage. He has opened up an extremely helpful door. We may be able to explore that with his colleagues and achieve a resolution which is satisfactory to us all. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
    6.15 p.m.
    Clause 46 [Payments out of Fund without appropriation Act]:
    Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 117:
    Page 23, line 22, after ("three") insert ("working").
    The noble Lord said: The aim of our financial provisions is to continue the tried and tested methods which have been in place now for more than 70 years.
    The government amendments which I am moving are mostly technical. Amendments Nos. 117 to 122 tidy up Clause 46 which is designed, first, to enable the financing of public services to continue if the Assembly is unable to agree a budget by the end of the financial year; and, secondly, to encourage it to agree by the prospect of a substantial cut in the amount of money available for public services. There is a risk that the Assembly might not agree because the budget, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, is subject to a cross-community vote. I hope it is not a big risk. I am sure the Assembly will take its financial responsibilities very seriously. But it is a risk with this sort of voting and we need to make provision.
    The noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Molyneaux of Killead, also address that contingency in Amendment No. 127 where they propose that the Secretary of State should fix the budget if the Assembly cannot do so before the end of the financial year. But I believe that their solution is wrong in principle because it would involve the Secretary of State in devolved matters which are not her responsibility and would provide an easy way out of an impasse for some members of the Assembly.
    The default provision provided in the Bill, as amended, would enable the Department of Finance and Personnel to authorise up to 75 per cent. of the previous year's budget from the start of the financial year to keep public services running. If the Assembly still had not reached a decision by July, the Department of Finance and Personnel could authorise the expenditure of additional sums up to a total over the whole period from the start of the financial year of 95 per cent. of the previous year's budget. That cut in the amount of money available for public expenditure on default would act as an incentive to members of the Assembly to agree a budget on time while providing protection for essential services.
    In Amendments Nos. 119A and 121A the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggests that we should reduce the sums of money available to the Department of Finance and Personnel to 50 per cent. at the start of the financial year and 75 per cent. for the whole year. That would certainly be an even stronger incentive to the Assembly to agree a budget than our proposals. But I think ours are strong enough. The noble Lord's proposal would present a grave risk to the people of Northern Ireland if the Assembly were not to agree. I beg to move.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the Minister said, I have tabled several amendments which are designed to make it more difficult for the Assembly if it does not agree a budget and hence to put pressure on it to agree a budget.

    1493
    The Minister suggested that my proposal in Amendment No. 127 would be an easy way out; that is, giving permission for the Secretary of State to take over the budget if the Assembly fails to agree one. I had hoped that it would be difficult for the Assembly to give up its own powers, particularly over finance, to the Secretary of State. But I suppose that it could work either way.
    At one stage I had some experience, which is not irrelevant, when I had responsibility at the Treasury for agreeing the Community budget during the British presidency. We had an awful job to achieve agreement among all the necessary parties by 31st December. It is therefore within my knowledge that the European Union has a device whereby if it fails to agree, one-twelfth of the previous year's allocation can be released each month as time goes on. That obviously provides considerable difficulties for the administration and hence it is extremely keen to avoid that happening. However, it has happened in quite a number of years. We avoided it happening in the year that I was in charge of those matters. I would like the Committee to think that that was entirely due to my skill and ability but I had some luck on my side. Therefore, I succeeded, but not everybody has managed that.
    It seems to me that 75 per cent. and 95 per cent. are very high and not much of a penalty. It is not a penalty which would bite very quickly. I believe that 75 per cent. is nothing of a penalty to apply between March and July. I should imagine that they would have an awful job to get through 75 per cent. of last year's money in that period of time, and even 50 per cent. is not a very sharp instrument in that respect. Ninety-five per cent. for a whole year is of course a considerable incentive. A reduction of 5 per cent. is not easily obtained in public expenditure, but it does not apply for much of the year. I also suggest tightening that up, but I do not feel all that strongly about these issues. It is important that there should be a mechanism, and that it is provided in the Bill. I should like to see it a little stronger so as to encourage the Assembly to come to an agreement. However, unless I am encouraged by subsequent debate, I do not think that I shall be pressing the three amendments very hard.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I think that the eventuality with which the government amendments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seek to deal is by no means unlikely. We could be faced with precisely this eventuality, so we are not talking about an academic problem but about a real problem resulting from the Assembly not having the political maturity to deal with its responsibilities properly. It is a possibility. We hope it is not a likelihood; but it is a possibility. I have to say that between the two ways of dealing with it I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Cope, say that he was not too dogmatic about them. I quite take his point that the Government's penalties are not "front loaded" as it were, and in that sense do not act as a sufficient deterrent. However, given the choice between his
    1494
    method of dealing with it and the one that the Government are proposing, from these Benches we would support the Government.
    Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for his support. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that a reduction of 75 per cent., which he suggested would not have that much impact for quite some time, could in fact bite fairly quickly, because the Assembly would very soon find that the departments in Northern Ireland were developing serious cash-flow problems; indeed, they might develop those problems within a month or two. So I think that it is a tougher sanction than perhaps the noble Lord suggested.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 118:
    Page 23, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert—
    ("(a) the authorised officer of the Department of Finance and Personnel may, subject to any Act subsequently passed, authorise the issue of sums out of that Fund for the service of year 2; and").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 119:
    Page 23, line 31, at end insert—
    ("() The aggregate of the sums issued under subsection (1) for the service of year 2 shall not exceed 75 per cent of the total amount appropriated by Act for the service of year 1.").
    [Amendment No. 119A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 119, not moved.]
    On Question, Amendment No. 119 agreed to.
    Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 120:
    Page 23, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert—
    ("(a) the authorised officer of the Department of Finance and Personnel may, subject to any Act subsequently passed, authorise the issue of sums out of that Fund for the service of the year;").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 121:
    Page 23, line 41, at end insert—
    ("() The aggregate of the sums issued under subsection (2), and (where applicable) the sums issued under subsection (1), for the service of any financial year shall not exceed 95 per cent of the total amount appropriated by Act for the service of the preceding financial year.").
    [Amendment No. 121A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 121, not moved.]
    On Question, Amendment No. 121 agreed to.
    Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 122:
    Page 23, line 42, after ("section") insert—
    (""Act" means an Act of the Assembly or, in relation to any time before the appointed day, an Order in Council under Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974;").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 123:
    Page 23, line 44, at end insert—
    ("(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, the Secretary of State shall make such a payment at least once every financial year.
    (5) No such payment shall be made unless the Secretary of State has laid before the House of Commons a statement certifying that the payment recognises the needs of Northern Ireland relative to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole.").
    The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 123 and it has been suggested that it would be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 124 at the same time. Both these amendments address the question of how much money is going to go from the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland to enable the Assembly and the Executive to carry out their tasks. There is an expectation that if this whole process works as we hope and a more peaceful time comes to Northern Ireland, public expenditure can be reduced considerably within Northern Ireland.
    Of course I go along with that to a certain degree. But it does concern me that the Treasury—whose ways we all know well—might take this as an excuse to advance too early on the Northern Ireland budget and try to save money that way. I shall not go into the difficulties which the Treasury faces at the moment as a result of the Government's economic policy, although one could go on for some time about that. We know that all governments at all times—and certainly the Treasury at all times—look, quite rightly, for savings in public expenditure, so they might look at Northern Ireland a bit sharply.
    It therefore seemed to me that we should try to place some safeguards into the Bill to ensure that Northern Ireland got its fair share, even though that might be less than has been required in recent years when the security situation has been so difficult. Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 suggest two ways in which we might achieve this desirable end. I am reinforced in making the case for this by the fact that I have read, and heard about, reports that the Treasury was doing its best the other day to reduce the amount of money that was likely to be provided for redundancy for prison officers.
    There may be nothing in this, and I am not necessarily asking the Minister to comment specifically on this case, but if the Treasury were trying to cut down the amount of money being made available to prison officers who have been made redundant, I think that would be a false economy. It should certainly not be regarded as part of the peace dividend. In the course of the past few years, prison officers have been among those, alongside the Royal Ulster Constabulary and others, in the front line of fighting terrorism. If we have now got to the position, partly as a result of the releases under the Belfast agreement, where in future we shall require fewer prison officers, it is my belief that those who no longer have a job in this capacity should be most generously treated.
    That view is reinforced by what seems to me, and to many people, to be the generous treatment apparently being lined up for those prisoners being released. The comparison has already been drawn, and I need not emphasise it. At any rate, it is my view that Northern Ireland will continue to require a considerable amount of finance even if the, so-called, "peace process" goes
    1496
    ahead as smoothly, as easily and as fully as we would all wish. There will be a lot of winding down to do. There will be a lot of unemployment at the end of the peace process and there will be many deserving cases, as it were, who have been part of the security effort.
    The economic situation within Northern Ireland is not such as to allow anybody to relax. The level of unemployment, and so on, is high and will get higher rather than lower initially if peace comes fully. For all these reasons, I have a great deal of sympathy with Northern Ireland continuing to receive a disproportionate share, by comparison with its population, of the funds available from United Kingdom taxpayers as a whole. Without any safeguards, I think the situation will be so much more difficult to resolve and will leave a lot of bitterness behind. It is with all those thoughts in mind that I advance these two propositions, which are intended to secure the funding of the Northern Ireland government in future upon a sound and, I believe, a generous basis.
    6.30 p.m.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am not a lawyer nor an accountant and I hesitate to go into too much detail in relation to the admirable case made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. However, when one lives in Northern Ireland—in that I include the Minister, who does so for a great part of his time—one is aware of the hardships and difficulties which will, strangely enough, arise from the establishment of peace. Looking at this long-range from the Treasury point of view, one would imagine that the opposite might be the case. But I hope that the hand of Northern Ireland Ministers will be strengthened as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, as a former Treasury Minister has proposed. I recognise that generosity is not a speciality of the Treasury, but in this case it ought to look carefully, through the eyes of the natives, at the situation which will develop in Northern Ireland, not just for the remainder of this financial year, but, in particular, for the year beyond that.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Now that I fully understand the purpose of these amendments, which I confess I did not originally, I wholeheartedly support them. They are worded in such a way that it was not immediately apparent to me. I had the opportunity of speaking with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, beforehand and now understand that they are meant to keep the Treasury at bay. That is absolutely essential.
    The economy of Northern Ireland has many assets but it is still precarious. There will need to be generous and enlightened support from mainland Britain and consistent support from the Treasury for some years to come. If the amendments do nothing else, I hope that they will allow the Minister, when he replies to this discussion, to make it clear that there will not be an early pre-emptive strike by the Treasury to try to claw back the peace dividend to Whitehall rather than leaving it in Northern Ireland where it can fructify.
    Lord Dubs: There is no need to stipulate that the Secretary of State shall pay money into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund every year. The Secretary of

    1497
    State is merely the vehicle through which the money for the fund is conveyed. It is the House of Commons which votes the money as part of the annual allocations.
    The noble Lord, Lord Cope, proposes that there should be a special provision so that money will not go to Northern Ireland unless the Secretary of State certifies that it recognises the needs of Northern Ireland in relation to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is unnecessary. The money which goes to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund is allocated according to a formula which takes account of the financial requirements of all regions within the United Kingdom. It acts by applying Northern Ireland's broad population share (currently 2.9 per cent.) to changes in comparable Great Britain programmes.
    This formula has produced fair settlements for Northern Ireland and enabled the Secretary of State to determine spending decisions in accordance with Northern Ireland needs and priorities. The Government are committed to maintaining this formula for the foreseeable future. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel it unnecessary to press his amendment.
    Lord Skelmersdale: If the Secretary of State is a vehicle for paying money voted by Parliament across to the Assembly, why do we need Clause 45? Clause 45 states,
    "The Secretary of State shall from time to time make payments into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland out of money provided by Parliament of such amounts as he may determine".
    Lord Dubs: That is formal procedure through which consolidated money is paid and therefore it appears on the face of the Bill, as it should.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: In the light of the discussion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
    Clause 49 [Financial acts of the Assembly]:
    Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 125:
    Page 24, line 35, after ("Personnel") insert ("or such other Minister appointed under section 15 as shall be nominated by the Treasury").
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 125 is directed to subsection (1)(a) of Clause 49 which provides for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to approve any vote of money. It was said earlier in our discussions that we cannot prejudge whether there will be a Minister of Finance and Personnel; he may be called something else. It was said that it is not for this Chamber under the legislation as proposed to designate the Ministers; it is up to the new machinery being set up, particularly the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, who have some difficult hoops to go through in that process.
    It may be that at some crucial point there is a vacancy in the post as a result of the mechanics not being applied. That is not desirable. The amendment enters a kind of threat to the Assembly; I am using the Treasury
    1498
    as a blunderbuss, or perhaps as a Sword of Damocles, to be held over the machinery to make sure that they appoint someone as Minister of Finance and Personnel. It is desirable that there should be somebody in that position. That is the purpose of the amendment. It raises the question as to what happens if there is a vacancy at DFP at the relevant time. I suggest one answer, but there may be others. I beg to move.
    Lord Dubs: I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Cope, wants a fall-back minister to be able to make recommendations on financial matters, but I do not believe his solution will work. The Treasury may not make nominations to ministerial posts in the Assembly under Clause 15. The Assembly is a devolved government and should not be subject to direct influence or interference from the Executive. Even supposing that the Treasury could play such a role it would not be appropriate. The Minister of Finance and Personnel—or whatever title he may be given—will have a difficult role in needing to obtain cross-community support for major decisions. He must be given the trust and respect which a permanent substitute, standing in the wings, would scarcely allow him to develop.
    I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am glad the Minister understands that I tabled the amendment because of the danger of there being a vacancy. However, he did not suggest a solution to the potential problem. In the phrase he used,
    "The Minister of Finance and Personnel—or whatever title he may be given",
    the Minister cast doubt on his Bill. If he is called anything else, as I see it he cannot act under this provision. If he was given some other title, then he would not be the person referred to in the section. In that situation a difficulty would arise.
    Lord Skelmersdale: Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, as he is clearly going to do, perhaps I can say that as the nomenclature of departments is in the hands of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—according to the formula—they may easily come up with a different title. Will the Minister consider within the next few days whether it would be appropriate to substitute the words, "as nominated by the Treasury", for "nominated by the Assembly"? That would address his point and help out my noble friend.
    Lord Geddes: I apologise to the Committee for taking any part in this debate; I have not taken part before. This specific point seems to me to be a simple and practical one. As the Minister said, there may not be a Minister of Finance and Personnel as such. Would there then be the ludicrous situation such that primary legislation would be required to change what would then be the Act? Surely there is an easy way around this, such as was suggested by my noble friend.
    Lord Dubs: Let me see whether I can help. We cannot prejudge whether there will be specifically a

    1499
    Minister of finance and personnel, but the arrangements for allocating ministerial functions and, if necessary, for transferring such functions will ensure that a Minister remains responsible for that function. If a vacancy arises, Clause 15 provides for such a vacancy to be filled by the nominating officer of the party concerned. I believe that we have covered all such contingencies reasonably satisfactorily. As I said earlier, if we assume that the Assembly will fail in some way, we are simply encouraging a mentality of failure, which is surely not helpful. We have to believe that the Assembly will succeed in this as in other matters.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: We have had an exchange on that matter previously. However, I believe that in drawing up the legislation, we must consider some contingencies and the fact that the whole thing may not go entirely smoothly.
    With regard to this clause, we still have the difficulty that at some point the Assembly may want to give the Minister fulfilling that role a different title. The Assembly may want the responsibility for personnel to rest with a different department from that with the central responsibility for finance. That has happened here in Great Britain. The Minister responsible for the Civil Service looks after the personnel side. The same could easily happen over there.
    Therefore, I shall give further thought between now and Report to the possibility of altering the clause so that it refers to "the Minister responsible for finance" or another such more general phrase because that may cover that aspect of the difficulty.
    Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may make one further comment. I am advised that a Minister with a different title cannot act in the way suggested, but the arrangements for the transfer of functions will ensure that a Minister with a different title can inherit the functions of an existing department or Minister. I believe that we have still covered the point.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: That sounds very interesting and I shall consider it between now and Report in deciding whether to table another amendment. However, I shall not pursue that now and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.45 p.m.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 126:
    Page 24, line 42, leave out from ("Crown") to end of line 1 on page 25 and insert—
    ("(2A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act and any Order in Council made under the provisions of this Act, the Assembly shall neither impose nor vary taxes.").
    The noble Lord said: I believe that this amendment is fairly clear. It seeks to place beyond peradventure the fact that the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Government cannot impose or vary taxes. We shall come later to some slightly confusing or at least oddly
    1500
    worded provisions on taxation. I note that the Government have tabled some amendments to those provisions which will probably improve them.
    I believe that it is clear—I am suggesting in the amendment that it should be made very clear—that the Assembly will not be a tax-raising body. The particular form of devolution chosen for Scotland provides for a tax-raising body although that for Wales does not. I believe that we need to make clear what we are doing in this case. I beg to move.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am not persuaded of the necessity for this amendment. It seems redundant to insert into the Bill references to those things that the Assembly shall not do. However, to the extent that this is a philosophical issue, I think that there is probably a difference between the Conservative Benches and our own. I believe that ultimately the logic of devolution is that there should be greater tax-raising—or at least tax-varying—powers in the bodies to which power is devolved to the nations of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. However, I am content for the present because we are all clear that the Assembly shall not have such powers in the short and medium term. I do not like the amendment, however, because I would not like it to appear that that option is closed for ever when it seems to me to be the logical development over time of the principle of devolution.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I referred to this thorny subject at an earlier stage. I am not in favour of a devolved assembly, wherever it may be in the United Kingdom, having tax-varying powers, because ultimately everything depends on Treasury decisions. However, the problem is that in the early years of the existence of this Assembly—the same would apply to an even greater extent in Scotland—extra funding will be required (from whatever source) for the simple reason that so much is expected of the devolved structures. So much is being promised by those who in Northern Ireland have stood for election and by those who—Heaven help them!—will stand for election in Scotland that they will make promises which they cannot possibly deliver when they come into office. It might be a salutary safeguard to have on the face of the Bill a clear statement that, however great the pressure applied, Members of the Assembly cannot be expected to find an easy way out by increasing taxation.
    I believe that it has been estimated that in Scotland taxation may vary—may be raised—by up to 3p in the pound and that, on current calculations, that is intended to produce about £450 million. However, having read the Scottish papers, I believe that about three times that amount will be required if all the promises being made by the parties which are striving for electoral support are to be fulfilled. I support the amendment because it is important clearly to establish that however great the needs, the demands and the clamour, such a power will not be available.
    Lord Desai: Perhaps I may raise one small point. On an earlier occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, pointed out that when attracting investment Northern

    1501
    Ireland is competing with the Republic, which has a much lower rate of taxation. That is why it may be necessary to consider such powers. Why, therefore, seek to put such an amendment on the face of the Bill when it merely makes life difficult?
    Lord Dubs: I think that this amendment reflects a misunderstanding. The reference in Clause 49(2)(d) to,
    "imposes or increases a tax",
    does not give the Assembly power to impose general taxes of a type which are normally levied on a UK basis such as income tax. It refers only to local taxes and in practice to the regional rate—there is no community charge in Northern Ireland—which, as a purely local tax, it is perfectly suitable for the Assembly to levy.
    If your Lordships look at Schedule 2(9) to the Bill, which I hope will be slightly amended to cover duties as well as taxes, you will see that taxes under any law applying to the United Kingdom as a whole are in the excepted category, which means that they are permanently outside the competence of the Assembly. They cannot change category by order. They can be changed only by a subsequent Act of this Parliament. So there is no possibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly being able to levy, for example, income tax, but it can levy taxes which are not levied on a UK basis such as rates. This is the power which the Assembly has had in the past and it is right that it should continue.
    Reference has been made to the possibility of the Assembly having tax-varying powers generally. There is no provision in the agreement for the Assembly to have a wider tax-varying power so that it could, for example, vary income tax. The issue was put to the parties both during the talks and afterwards but there was no great degree of support for it. It will be open to the Assembly to ask for such a power in future if it wishes. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 49 agreed to.
    Clause 50 [Draft budgets]:
    [Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
    Clause 50 agreed to.
    Clause 51 [Audit]:
    Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 128:
    Page 25, line 15, at end insert ("on the nomination of the Assembly.
    () The Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland shall not, in the exercise of any of his functions, be subject to the direction or control of any Minister or of the Assembly; but this subsection does not apply in relation to any function conferred on him of preparing accounts.").
    The noble Lord said: Government Amendment No. 128, which affects Clause 51, is the first in a series of amendments which fulfil undertakings given by my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It makes the Assembly responsible for
    1502
    nominating to Her Majesty the Queen its preferred candidate for the post of Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland. It makes it clear on the face of the Bill that the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland will continue to be independent of the Assembly's and Ministers' control except in preparing accounts where he will, of course, prepare and submit them as the Assembly requests.
    In another place my right honourable friend undertook to consider whether we could make additional amendments to the Bill which would bring the audit provisions more into line with those in the Scotland Bill. I hope to do so on Report.
    In connection with the same clause, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to reconsider his Amendment No. 129 which makes the Secretary of State responsible for advising Her Majesty about a suitable candidate for appointment as Comptroller and Auditor General. The comptroller will audit the expenditure of a devolved Assembly and other bodies for which the Secretary of State will have no financial responsibility. It would be contrary to the principles of devolution for the Secretary of State to be involved in making a recommendation to the Queen about such a devolved post.
    Amendment No. 128A proposes to insert a reference to "junior Minister". I have sympathy with this. We shall be reviewing generally the various references to Ministers and junior Ministers before Report.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: This series of amendments concerns the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General. There are three points to consider. There is also the minor point of the insertion of the words "junior Minister". In the light of what the Minister has said, I shall not move the relevant amendment when we reach it.
    The three points of substance are, first, the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland; secondly, his independence; and, thirdly, his relationship with the main Comptroller and Auditor General. It is proposed that, as in Scotland, the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland should be appointed on the nomination of the Assembly. The main Comptroller and Auditor General for the United Kingdom is appointed now by the Commission of the House of Commons. That seems to me to be the better way to do it rather than have the Assembly make the nomination. I shall not press that point. I believe that he should be appointed through the parliamentary machinery. I think that is probably the correct way to appoint him. Therefore I shall not pursue Amendment No. 129.
    Secondly, we are also concerned about the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I shall leave that matter until we discuss later amendments. The third aspect is the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland vis-à-vis the main Comptroller and Auditor General for the United Kingdom. I am not sure whether the latter will have any oversight over what the CAG for Northern Ireland does. After all, we are talking here substantially about United Kingdom taxpayers' money. There should

    1503
    certainly be some link between the two people. We should certainly consider whether the Comptroller and Auditor General should have some oversight through the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland as regards what happens to the United Kingdom's money.
    This is a difficult point but it is important to get it right. There has long been a separate Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland, as there has been a separate Consolidated Fund for many years. That has continued to be the position—in some respects this is slightly anomalous—during direct rule. The CAG for Northern Ireland is still in post, as he has been throughout the period of direct rule. If possible, I should like to be given reassurance now or later on the matter of the relationship between the CAG and the CAG for Northern Ireland.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I think that the key issue here is the relationship between the Comptroller and Auditor General for the UK as a whole and the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, rightly said that we are talking here substantially about British taxpayers' money. Although we have a devolved Assembly, the oversight of the correctness of process seems to me to be relevant to the British taxpayer too. I should be grateful if the Minister could spell out what relationship, if any, is envisaged between the Comptroller and Auditor General for the United Kingdom and the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.
    Lord Dubs: The Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General will be entirely independent. It is not envisaged that he would in any way report to the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General, or indeed that there would be oversight on the part of the UK comptroller over the Northern Ireland comptroller. That is not the intention. However, in a more informal sense there is nothing to prevent the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General from having links with the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General. I believe that has been the case in the past and will continue in the future. However, in a formal sense, the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General will be entirely independent.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he go further as it would be extremely sensible to establish some rationalisation of process and approach between the two Comptroller and Auditor Generals, even, as he put it, on an informal basis?
    Lord Dubs: I fear if it were to be suggested that the Northern Ireland comptroller would in some way report to the United Kingdom comptroller, that would detract from the authority of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General. I think it is proper to view the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General as
    1504
    an independent person who has full authority and full responsibility for the reports that he makes on government expenditure.
    Lord Holme of Cheltenham: If the noble Lord will forgive me, that is not what I said. I did not suggest that the Northern Ireland comptroller should report to the UK comptroller. I asked the Minister whether he would go so far as to say that it would be extremely sensible and desirable for them to establish a close liaison on process and other matters. I did not merely suggest that that might happen, but rather that it would be sensible for it to happen.
    Lord Dubs: There would be a lot of sense in pursuing informal contact and informal co-operation of that kind. I know the noble Lord did not quite suggest the point to which I replied. I simply wanted to establish the independence of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General as well as agreeing that informal links and a relationship with the UK Comptroller and Auditor General would be mutually beneficial.
    [Amendment No. 128A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 128, not moved.]
    On Question, Amendment No. 128 agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
    Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 52 agreed to.
    Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 130:
    Before Clause 53, insert the following new clause—

    COMMENCEMENT OF SECTIONS 53 TO 57
    (".—(1) Sections 53 to 57 shall have effect from such day not less than four and not more than six years after the passing of this Act as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
    (2) An order under subsection (1) shall also establish a period of at least one year within which relevant bodies, organisations and individuals may submit proposals for and comments on the powers and functions of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and the Secretary of State shall ensure that that consultation period is otherwise advertised in such manner as he considers appropriate.
    (3) The Secretary of State shall, by the day appointed under subsection (1)—

    (a) commission a review of the operation of—

    (i) existing legislation relevant to the work of the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland, the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland and the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland; and

    (ii) the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 insofar as it has effect in Northern Ireland,

    and, on the basis of that review, propose new legislation to consolidate and, where appropriate, amend that legislation; and

    (b) propose legislation for Northern Ireland to prohibit discrimination on grounds of age and sexual orientation.").

    The noble Lord said: I wish to move this amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester. He regrets that he cannot be present because he has a prior appointment. He has already spoken to this amendment when he spoke to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 on Monday. I refer to cols. 1236–38 of the Official Report. I do not wish

    1505
    to comment further on this amendment except to say that on Second Reading I expressed sentiments about this proposed new clause which are entirely in line with those of my noble friend. I beg to move.
    7 p.m.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I have serious doubts about the wisdom of this amendment, although I understand why it is being moved. It seeks to delay the establishment of the new Northern Ireland human rights commission for at least four years to allow for a period of consultation with various bodies and individuals on the powers and functions to be given to the human rights commission, and then to allow for a review to take place of all existing equality legislation so as to consolidate and amend the quality of that legislation.
    We on these Benches strongly support the need to consolidate existing equality legislation, which is in a hopeless mess, and to turn it into a comprehensive, user-friendly equality code, just as the Treasury is seeking to turn the mess of the financial services legislation into a sensible, user-friendly code. It is important that there should be effective enforcement of the equality code, and that it should be extended to cover, for example, discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and age and to have an equal and consistent method of enforcement. However, we do not believe that such a review, which we believe is urgent, should be linked in any way to the establishment of the human rights commission. Equality issues are linked with other human rights issues. However, we should not wish to do anything to delay the establishment of such an important body as the Northern Ireland human rights commission in accordance with the Good Friday agreement.
    What is absolutely vital is that the equality commission should have the same status as the human rights commission; that there should be no devolution of the equality legislation to the Northern Ireland Assembly, because it is a core civil right. There should be no dilution, no placing of the equality code under the will of the majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly—it should remain a core responsibility—and there should be an effective and speedy review of the underlying equality law throughout the United Kingdom as a whole.
    For those reasons we oppose this amendment as merely delaying the setting up of a human rights commission—which we deplore—and not sufficiently dealing with the underlying malaise in equality legislation or the need to make the equality commission a strong and effective enforcement agency.
    Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: The amendment proposes new institutions for Northern Ireland relating to human rights, and subsequent amendments seek to create new institutions. In considering these amendments, I ask the Committee to have regard to the influence that they may have on the economy of Northern Ireland.
    All my working life I have been involved in manufacturing, distribution and other activities relating to the Northern Ireland economy. Its fabric is delicate
    1506
    and requires sensitivity. We sometimes forget that, without a thriving economy, we cannot pay for an Assembly, with the high salaries offered to so many.
    Small companies are very important in the private sector in Northern Ireland. To cite a simple statistic, 78 per cent. of all the companies there employ fewer than 20 people, but they employ 32 per cent. of those employed in the private sector. It is important that we have regard to the problems of such companies. They have to deal with the rate of change—which everywhere is almost frightening in what is undoubtedly a global economy. It means that the managers of small companies are wholly engaged in looking after those companies in these changing times.
    Small companies in particular have little or no time to spare to attend to the demands of bureaucracy in all its forms. In recent years we have had to conform to European directives, sometimes at considerable cost, and the Fair Employment Commission has imposed an additional load. For instance, there is a requirement to keep notes of all interviews with prospective employees for at least three years in case someone may claim discrimination, which is quite common. That imposes a very great load on small companies.
    The perception is that employers in Northern Ireland are sectarian. That is far from the reality. In the past 30 years there has been surprisingly little trouble of a sectarian or community nature on the shop floor. Employers and employees have come to understand the importance of fair employment and no discrimination.
    The regulations relating to fair employment and equality of treatment impose a significant cost on small businesses. It is hard to quantify, but in the case of my own company, employing some 100 people, compliance with those regulations costs several thousand pounds a year. We cannot afford a specialist to study all the regulations with regard to fair employment and other matters and employ a consultant to advise us on all matters concerning employment and dismissals.
    We must therefore be very careful in regard to any new regulations. No matter how desirable they appear, we must have regard to the effect that they will have on business generally, and on small businesses in particular.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: This new clause contains several different proposals. First, it seeks to postpone the start of the new human rights commission provisions for between four and six years. That is not desirable, primarily because of the promise given in the Belfast agreement. Paragraph 5 on page 17 of the agreement, in the section headed, "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity", states firmly:
    "A new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission … will be established by Westminster legislation, independent of Government",
    etc.
    It is important that that is carried out. It is certainly important in the minds of some people who supported the Belfast agreement in the belief that this would happen. It has been a significant element. Whether we like it or not, this is a deal in which all the pieces have

    1507
    to be accepted at this point, desirable or otherwise. I am therefore not in sympathy with the idea of simply postponing the start of the human rights commission for four to six years.
    Subsection (3) of the amendment seeks a review of the legislation with regard to the Fair Employment Commission and the other equality commissions that presently exist in Northern Ireland. We shall return to this matter later; it does not fall very naturally at this point. Under the Belfast agreement there is certainly more latitude in relation to what happens over this aspect. I have some sympathy with the idea of a single equality commission replacing the four existing bodies.
    The amendment proposes, thirdly, that in due course there should be additional legislation to prohibit discrimination on the additional grounds of age and sexual orientation. I do not object to consideration being given to that over a period, but I would prefer to leave it aside for the moment until we have solved the problems and established the machinery for human rights and the new equality commission or whatever is eventually decided upon on the existing basis. The constitution of the United Kingdom is in a state of upheaval, as we have already discussed, but the constitution and the institutions of Northern Ireland are in an even greater state of upheaval. We are stepping into uncharted territory. We are full of optimism as we do so, but the more extra matters we try to bolt on at the same time, the more risks we take. This may be only a small risk, but it exists.
    I share with the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, a reluctance to have additional regulations, for the sake of small businesses, in particular. We discussed this matter briefly the other evening when I expressed my view. Additional regulations should be carefully pondered before they are imposed upon small businesses, particularly in Northern Ireland where the employment and economic situation will have a lot to do with whether all these matters succeed and where political and security factors also affect the situation. The employment and economic situation remains important and extremely delicate. It is for that reason that I have hesitations about the third element of the new clause.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): Within this group of amendments are those standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. He may wish to address the Committee before I reply.
    Lord Hylton: Amendment No. 131, the first of my amendments, has been degrouped and stands by itself.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: That amendment has been decoupled but still within the group are the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 284 and 285.
    Lord Hylton: May we deal with those amendments when we come to the schedules?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am happy to deal with the matter as is convenient to the Committee. The amendments are grouped. I was simply offering the noble Lord the opportunity to speak to them.
    1508
    The new clause proposed in Amendment No. 130 would postpone the establishment of the human rights commission for at least four years to allow time for further consultation and would require a review of existing anti-discrimination legislation. As has been observed, the setting up of a human rights commission is a fundamental part of the Belfast agreement. We wish to set it up as soon as possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, pointed out.
    There has already been a great deal of consultation with interested organisations. Amendment No. 132, to which I shall come later, would require the commission to carry out a review of its powers and functions within two years of its establishment.
    As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton wishes, I shall not refer at this point to Amendments Nos. 284 and 285. Government Amendments Nos. 286 and 287 are technical amendments which make it possible for employment by the commission to fall under the terms of a superannuation scheme under the Superannuation Act 1972. Originally within this group were Amendments Nos. 288, 289 and 290, also standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I do not speak to those, either, if he wishes them to be decoupled.
    Dealing with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, much of the current equality legislation on fair employment—equal opportunities, for instance—is already within the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development. The agreement makes it plain that all existing responsibilities of Northern Ireland departments are to be devolved. If we withheld this body of equality law from devolution, that would be contrary to the agreement.
    I agree that equality is fundamental and central to the agreement. I believe that the safeguards in the agreement and this Bill will ensure that in practice the Assembly will not sweep away important protections. If necessary, votes in the Assembly can require cross-community support.
    7.15 p.m.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I perfectly understand that responsibility rests with the Northern Ireland department so far as enforcement is concerned at a departmental level. But am I not right in thinking that, so far as the Scotland Bill is concerned, responsibility for equality law is not to be devolved to the Scottish parliament and that, so far as the Northern Ireland Bill is concerned, as it now stands, subject to any amendment that may be tabled later, responsibility for equality law is not devolved? Equality law is a matter for which provision is made by the Northern Ireland Bill, as referred to in Schedule 2, paragraph 17. Would it not, therefore, be a departure from the scheme for Scotland, the scheme in the Northern Ireland Bill and the pattern of existing UK legislation as a whole if responsibility for making and amending the equality law were now to be transferred from this Parliament to the Northern Ireland Assembly?
    I hope my question is clear. I am sorry that it is so long but, in order to make it intelligible, one has to go back to the Scotland Bill and the schedule to the

    1509
    Northern Ireland Bill and the fact that so far legislation on equality has been made by a mixture of primary legislation by Parliament—for example, the Equal Pay Act—and by devolved legislation made by Order in Council in relation to gender and race and primary legislation in relation to the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Acts of 1976 and 1989. Would it not be a major departure if we were later to amend the schedule and then devolve the whole of equality legislation to be entirely in the gift of the Northern Ireland Assembly, subject only to Community law and the limited guarantees in the Human Rights Bill? This may be a matter on which the Minister would prefer to write rather than give an off-the-cuff answer today. I suggest that it is a very important issue.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe the answer is that the Scotland devolution is a first devolution whereas at the moment powers are effectively "devolved" to the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development. The noble Lord is right that provisions on equality in this Bill are reserved by subsection (3), but that does not extend to the wider body of equality law—for instance, fair employment and equal opportunities. I agree with the noble Lord that the outcome will be different on this basis in the context of Northern Ireland, but that is because significant responsibilities for matters in this area already rest with the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I do not understand that answer. The Bill makes provision for collapsing the EOC for Northern Ireland, the CRE for Northern Ireland, the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland and the Disability Rights Council for Northern Ireland into the equality commission. It therefore amends the equality legislation dealing with those four bodies. That is a matter for which provision is made under the Northern Ireland Bill within the meaning of paragraph 17 of Schedule 2. In my dealings with officials from the Northern Ireland department, when I have had the pleasure of discussing it with them, I have understood that that was therefore a matter that was not to be devolved.
    The Northern Ireland department does not have the power to make laws; only the Westminster Parliament has that power. As I have tried to explain, the laws so far made by primary and delegated legislation have been approved by the Westminster Parliament. If we were now to transfer to the Northern Ireland Assembly the law-making function over sex equality, race equality, religious equality and disability equality, that would be to erode national standards in a quite extraordinary way. I am sure that that cannot be intended by the Government. Nothing that I have seen in the Good Friday agreement or the Bill as it stands gives notice that that is the intention of the Government, which is why I would be grateful to have further clarification of the point.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand what the noble Lord has said, but I do not understand how it
    1510
    comes within the compass of Amendment No. 130. It may be that I am being unnecessarily obtuse. I do not believe that any of the propositions that the noble Lord puts forward are germane to Amendment No. 130.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My remarks arise out of the remarks of the Minister in reply to a question put by me. Referring to the Official Report, I understood him to say in response to a contribution from me that equality legislation would be a devolved subject. It was in response to that that I rose to my feet. However, it may be better if this point is clarified hereafter.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: I believe that it would be beneficial if the matter could be clarified now. I had thought that as the Bill stood it was intended that equality and human rights legislation would remain a Westminster responsibility. But I understood the Minister to say just now that it would be devolved, either now or in future. Perhaps I misunderstood the Minister.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I said that I hoped the agreement made plain that all existing responsibilities of Northern Ireland departments would be devolved. Much of the current equality legislation has been the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development. There will be no change. I am perfectly happy, if it is required, either to discuss matters privately with the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Cope, or deal with them in writing, in which case I shall place a copy in the Library. The answer is that in dealing with an amendment like Amendment No. 130 one should not be tempted or teased into other more philosophical general views.
    Lord Desai: I shall not be tempted to enter into this debate or even the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I believe that I already know the answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 53 [The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission]:
    Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 131:
    Page 25, line 36, at end insert ("independent of Government and political parties and").
    The noble Lord said: After various preliminaries the Committee comes to what I consider to be Part VI of the Bill proper. I hope that the Committee will permit me to say something by way of introduction to the amendments standing in my name. They seek to achieve a number of purposes. The first is to ensure that the human rights commission is independent, is seen to be independent and has sufficient resources to carry out effectively functions that are somewhat wider than those currently carried out by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. I hope that the new commission's additional functions will be: first, to investigate breaches of human rights; secondly, to litigate in its own name; thirdly, to assist individuals in legal actions; and, fourthly, to scrutinise both assembly and Westminster legislation that may

    1511
    affect human rights in Northern Ireland. The commission should also be free to decide its own financial priorities.
    Amendment No. 131 inserts words to clarify the meaning of "representative of the community" in line 37 on page 25 of the Bill. We know that Northern Ireland is a deeply divided society, not only between two broad traditions but also within particular communities. The divisions are religious, political and cultural. It is essential that the human rights commission be seen to be independent of government and political parties. I believe that that principle is accepted by Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, it would be difficult for the Government not to accept it in the light of paragraph 5 on page 17 of the Belfast agreement. It is also in accord with the Paris principles. I trust that the amendment will find favour with the Committee. I beg to move.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We support the sentiment behind the amendment. The commission must be seen to be independent of government and sufficiently well endowed with funds to be effective. However, we are troubled by seeking to bar anyone who belonged to a political party from being a member of the commission. It is one thing to say that political parties cannot secure nominations, which is quite right. However, the fact that in one's life one has belonged to a political party is scarcely misconduct or a disqualification from holding office on an independent commission of this kind. Therefore, although we support the sentiment that lies behind the amendment we do not believe that it is right to limit in that particular way the pool from which candidates can be chosen.
    Lord Kingsland: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, whose sentiments on this issue I entirely share, I believe that a statement from the Minister that he agrees with the underlying principle to which the amendment is directed should be sufficient to guarantee the objective that he seeks.
    I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I agree with him, except in one respect. I believe it to be consistent with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that up to the moment of appointment the particular person could be a member of a political party but, thereafter, should behave independently. One thinks as an example of British commissioners in the European Community, many of whom have been very active members of political parties but who, quite successfully, have been seen to become, as if by a stroke, very independent once they are installed in Brussels. I see absolutely no reason why the same cannot apply to human rights commissioners in Northern Ireland.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am happy to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that there is no difference between us. We intend that the human rights commission should be wholly independent of government and political parties and that is why the Bill is constructed in this way. It ensures that the commission is independent. The commission decides
    1512
    how it is to carry out its functions, what staff to employ and which cases to support. It is free to give any advice that it chooses to the Secretary of State and the Assembly. It will be able to investigate where it believes that human rights issues are involved. It will itself define what "human rights" means, although that definition must include convention rights. All of that is already in the Bill. There is also the provision in paragraph 11 of Schedule 8. Having put our stance as unambiguously and as clearly as possible, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Hylton: I am grateful for all of the comments that have been made on the amendment. I understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about party membership. However, one wonders whether that may be dealt with by resignation in the manner suggested by the Opposition Front Bench. However, my principal concern is the total independence of the commission. I note what the Minister has said. Therefore, for the time being I am prepared to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 53 agreed to.
    Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage of this Bill begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
    Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
    House resumed.

    Smoking in Public Places
    7.30 p.m.
    Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to ban or restrict smoking in restaurants, other eating places and other public places.
    The noble Lord said: In begging leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I inquire what steps the Government propose to take to deal with smoking in restaurants and other public places, especially those where people are entitled to enjoy their food and drink without the nuisance of other people's smoke.
    It is not a new problem. James I of England in 1604 gave the classic description:
    "A custom [smoking] loathsome to the eye, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless".
    And in all these years the position has not changed. That fact is recognised not only by those who do not smoke but by vast numbers of those who smoke and who deeply regret their addiction.
    From the start I declare my former interest as one of those persons. As a young soldier in the British Army of the Rhine, I shared a car with a soldier called Freddy Granville, a former SAS man. He induced me to start

    1513
    smoking. It took 10 years to become unhooked, and it was a difficult and miserable process. Ever since then I have represented not only myself but millions of other former addicts in my deep dislike of other people blowing their smoke wherever I happen to be. Untold millions more who have never smoked resent having the smoke of others inflicted on them.
    I wish to refer in particular to places where we eat and drink—places where we are entitled to do so in decency and comfort, and without smoke if we wish it. I recognise that there are distinguished noble Lords present—I was about to say and ancient noble Lords—who have smoked for a long time and cherish their right so to do. They have that right. Any adult in this country, whether or not of sound mind, is fully entitled to destroy his or her health as and when he or she thinks fit, as long as he or she respects the equal right of other persons not to have their health destroyed.
    Is it a matter of health? A man called Knebel said a few years ago:
    "It is now proved beyond doubt that smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics".
    Some are accurate, and some are not. It is now again clear from the report of a recent government committee that passive smoking causes lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease. The report states:
    "Long exposure to environmental tobacco smoke increases the risk of dying from the disease by 20–30 per cent. in non-smokers, accounting for several hundred extra deaths from lung cancer in the United Kingdom every year. Passive smoking damages children's health and is an important cause of childhood respiratory infections and chronic lung disease".
    Active smoking for adults is a matter for them. Passive smoking is not because it affects the health of others. But those who smoke—they are entitled to do so and I respect their right—should respect my right and that of others not to have the impact of their smoke blown into our lives. While they are fully entitled to smoke if they wish, and where they wish, they are not entitled to do so in a way that affects others who do not appreciate smoking. They are free to smoke. I am free to eat my meals without having the taste affected by other people's smoke. They are entitled to blow their smoke anywhere they like, provided that they do not blow it at me and others who object to it. It is a free world. They are free to smoke; but I must also be free not to be "smoked at".
    That is the balance. Opponents of change say that it is a free country. It is indeed a free country in which we have free speech, but it is still a country where we restrict people's freedom of speech. One cannot defame, use racist attacks, or pornographic speech. There are restrictions on speech. It is a balance. People are free to drive their cars on the road but not to do so in a way that endangers other people's lives and health. That is restricted by law. People are free to smoke, but they should not do so, and should be restricted from doing so, in a way that affects other people's freedom not to have their comfort and health affected by smoking.
    The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who will reply will no doubt decline to tell us anything that the Government have not published. However, as usual there are prior leaks, on this occasion in an article in the
    1514
    Observer On Sunday which states that the Government are
    "on the brink of agreeing a new voluntary code of conduct which will be seized on eagerly by licencees and restaurateurs as their last chance of avoiding an outright ban".
    I am not against voluntary agreements provided that they work. But I do not believe that this voluntary agreement will work. I am not against voluntary agreements if there is a good chance of their working. If this agreement is backed by the Government's clear statement—I venture to hope that my noble friend may yet produce it tonight—that if the agreement does not work they will take action, I should be happy to be patient.
    But meanwhile what is to happen? In the Palace of Westminster I am told that there are 23 places where people can eat and drink. In many of them there is an attempt to separate smokers from non-smokers. It is not necessarily successful. There are many places where some of us will not go because we do not like the smoke blown around by others who are exercising their freedom to smoke as and when they will. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is not present tonight. No doubt she would descend with great wrath upon my arguments and accuse me of many wicked offences. However, the noble Baroness told me that she has to be in Madrid. That is a great loss to the debate, this House and the cause of smokers. I should have liked to have heard the noble Baroness. In some ways the extent to which her passion for smoking overlaps into the realms of hyperbole helps my case. I sent her my best wishes.
    For the remainder of us, the debate is an opportunity to express a point of view. It is a chance to say that we recognise that to smoke in a public place is not purely a matter of an individual right for the person smoking; it has effects on the comfort and health of others. It is our opportunity to salute those many businesses which no longer allow smoking in their buildings, and those countries which have already introduced legislation to deal with this issue, including many parts of the United States. American guests are amazed and appalled that people can still fill restaurants in this country with smoke when they are trying to eat without discomfort or interference of their right not to be disturbed by tobacco smoke.
    I therefore ask the House to support my effort to encourage my Government—it is a Government I support willingly and wholeheartedly—to express a clear view today. If the Government cannot do so, I hope that my noble friend will do so in his personal capacity. One way or another we must make our restaurants, eating places and bars better, cleaner and more decent places for all by keeping smokers on one side of a room where they can smoke in their own way and in their own time while respecting the rights of others not to be disturbed by the smoke to which they are addicted.
    7.40 p.m.
    Lord Daresbury: My Lords, it is with great diffidence that I rise to make my maiden speech in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, for bringing such an important matter to the attention of the House. I am also pleased to have the

    1515
    opportunity to participate in a debate in which I have an interest and where I hope my own experience is of relevance.
    My family's business, which has been in existence for more than 200 years, is that of operating places in which people gather to drink, eat and socialise. Today, as chief executive of that business, I am responsible for the operation of more than 2,000 licensed outlets which range from small public houses to five-star hotels. In all, we employ just over 25,000 people across the United Kingdom.
    There is no doubt in my mind that smoking and the damage it causes is a serious public health issue. However, the subject of this debate is the control of public behaviour, which I regard as a different matter and one which should not be confused with health education. I do not believe that the restriction on smoking in licensed premises either can or should be brought about by legislation.
    The Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association, of which my company is a member, estimates from its recent research that 47 per cent. of pub customers are smokers. Interestingly, the BLRA also notes that 72 per cent. of those who frequent pubs socialise in groups containing both smokers and non-smokers. That tends to contradict the idea that the two parties are actively pursuing segregation.
    Although the pub industry has moved a long way from the days of spit and sawdust, the fact is that smoking remains a part of the social experience of pub-going. Those who contemplate legislation are ignoring practical difficulties as well as matters of principle. For example, where ventilation is concerned many British pubs are historic buildings in which the installation of air extraction systems raises planning as well as cost concerns. Frankly, I cannot see how legislation in this regard could fail to harm smaller, older outlets, including those which are most cherished not only by the traditionalists but by tourists to this country from all over the world. By that, I do not mean that we should do nothing. I take the view that clean air is both generally desirable and good for business. But it is the business of pub operators to run pubs, not to engage in social engineering.
    The operators of licensed premises should address themselves not to changing the behaviour of smokers, but to removing the smoke they produce, thereby both benefiting and retaining all their customers. I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that that task can be accomplished, and indeed is already being undertaken, most effectively without government intervention. Responsible operators are actively developing industry-wide initiatives which encourage a common approach to reducing risks and enhancing safety for all who visit and work in licensed premises.
    In closing, I beg to draw your Lordships' attention to my conviction that it is both unreasonable and unworkable to impose regulation and its attendant cost on licensed premises. Today's pub industry should not be used as an instrument of social change. Attempts to do so will inevitably lead to the disruption of trade and the destruction of jobs.
    7.43 p.m.
    Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, no one will doubt that it is an extra special pleasure for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Daresbury, on his eloquent and well judged speech. A Daniel come to judgment, indeed. From his great experience in the brewing industry and other industries he brings the courage to join in one of these controversial debates as an innocent maiden. When he is let off the leash for his future speeches, to which we look forward, we will be in for some rare treats.
    Alas, I have to declare an interest as the chairman of FOREST, which is the leading European smokers' rights group. I have an even more anxious interest to declare as the part author of a forthcoming book, to be published by Duckworth next month, with the suitably lurid title Murder a Cigarette. I mention that only because it finally kills off the phantom of so-called "passive smoking".
    Of course, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, for the opportunity to dispel the smokescreen of stale rhetoric and shed a little light on this widely misconceived topic. I say most solemnly that after intensive study of the literature on so-called "passive smoking" I am left with not the least whiff of doubt that all the blood-curdling talk we hear is wholly misguided. It rests on nothing more substantial than pseudo-science, compounded of anecdotal evidence, selective surveys and statistical jiggery-pokery. The flawed findings are then solemnly spread by mournful individuals using a process I describe as passive thinking.
    It may be thought special pleading, but the latest and largest survey on the subject, a 10-year survey conducted for the World Health Organisation by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, has just issued its report and concludes that there is,
    "no relationship between childhood exposure to second-hand smoke at home and lung cancer".
    As regards so-called "spousal smoking", which sounds rather unpleasant, try as they might, the researchers had to admit that their findings were "statistically non-significant".
    I earnestly appeal for an end to the mischievous propaganda about health dangers from "passive smoking". The way of a free society in settling such conflicts is not through the coercion of law and crude prohibition; it is the way of tolerance and mutual respect for the freedom of others. The true liberal should always seek accommodation before confrontation. In my view, that is the two-sided, unwritten compact of a free society.
    The noble Lord said that voluntary negotiations are always taking place in order to accommodate both smokers and non-smokers. Even hospitals have begun to bring back smoking areas to avoid the conflicts which their bans produced. Despite their occasional authoritarian lapses, I urge Her Majesty's Government to stand firm against the divisive lobbying of ASH and its acolytes.
    7.47 p.m.
    Lord Haskel: My Lords, I shall not go into the arguments as to whether smoking and passive smoking are health hazards. I simply refer the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to the ASH website which I visited when preparing for the debate. I assure him that if I were a smoker I would have discontinued smoking there and then. I suggest that if parents want to discourage their children from smoking they get them to play the Tobacco Explored game on the website. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris, might play the game. I believe that it would make him change his mind.
    Where smoking is concerned, there are spurious economics. There are 120,000 smoking-related deaths a year, but we still allow advertising to encourage it. Furthermore, 450 children take up smoking every day. Norway banned cigarette advertising and the number of children taking it up halved. The economics are distorted by manipulation and addiction. My noble friend Lord Janner told us about that. It is not enough for the Government to say that they will leave restrictions on smoking to consumer choice and to people's good sense. Addiction and manipulation distort that good sense. For instance, smoking is not allowed on any American flight, not because of a wave of anti-smoking feeling and rules, but because the airline staff sued their employers for failing to provide them with a healthy environment at their place of work.
    British employers, too, have a duty under the health and safety Act to provide their employees with a healthy working environment. But what about the staff who work in restaurants which allow smoking and those who work in pubs which also allow smoking? Are they not also entitled to work in a healthy environment? Indeed, what about the staff who work in your Lordships' restaurants, the Library, Guest Room and bars? I would like to see the Government implementing the health and safety and COSHH regulations with more determination.
    The other area in which the Government must act is that of children. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is wrong. There is little doubt that passive smoking increases the risk of respiratory tract infection in children. It increases the severity of the symptoms of asthma in children. Childhood respiratory illness contributes to the development of respiratory diseases in adult life even if the children become adult non-smokers. The Government take upon themselves the protection of children from all kinds of health hazards. By law we vaccinate our children and immunise them against measles and polio. So why not protect them from tobacco smoke? I am concerned that passive smoking is an area where adults are asserting their rights to the detriment of children and it is wrong.
    The response usually given to this argument is in terms of the nanny state. It is the view of some that we need to be protected from an overbearing state. However, others believe that the Government should protect us from overbearing companies. I believe that there is a middle way—dare I say it, a third way. Where people are powerless there is a role for government to
    1518
    step in and shape society. Passive smoking is a case where the citizen is helpless and the Government must step in.
    7.51 p.m.
    The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, first I would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Daresbury on his maiden speech. He put forward a very sensible and well-reasoned argument in favour of retaining the status quo and encouraging the industry to solve the problem caused by smoking. Secondly, I should declare an interest as a committee member of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain and particularly as its spokesman on smoking-related issues. I am also a restaurateur owning Porters Restaurant in Covent Garden.
    However, I find myself agreeing to a great extent with the noble Lord, Lord Janner. I have been an avid non-smoker for over 20 years. I loathe sitting in a restaurant with someone's cigarette smoke polluting my food. I remember on one occasion asking the redoubtable Dame Diana Rigg if she would refrain from smoking underneath my nose while I was trying to enjoy my main course. However, equally I could comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Haskel said about the nanny state. I feel that to extend it further—it looks as though we are going to rescind the beef-on-the-bone ban—would be an enormous mistake.
    Laws were introduced in France which did not work. The French just ignored them. No prosecutions were carried out at all. A ban was introduced in New York which drove an enormous amount of business out of that city into the suburbs. Our polls within the industry have shown that not only does it not want it, but the public do not want it either. However, they also agree with us that there are three sensible options which the industry should adopt and which in fact the Restaurateurs Association promotes to its members extremely keenly.
    First—and this has already been dealt with—there is ventilation. I have ventilation and air conditioning extraction in my restaurant. I can sit next-door—fortunately, there is a little bit of room between our tables—to a table of smokers and watch the smoke going straight upwards and out of the restaurant. Therefore, it does not cause me a nuisance in my restaurant. As a result we do not have a non-smoking area. We are promoting to the industry and our members that they should adopt proper ventilation. If they are unable to do so or to put in adequate ventilation, they should consider setting aside an area for non-smokers so that they are not forced to breathe in the smoke of the smokers in the smoking area.
    The third option is that where restaurants are so small and cannot install adequate ventilation, they should consider the possibility of becoming completely non-smoking. So I, like the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, am trying to promote a middle way that relieves the Government of the responsibility and where the industry takes the responsibility on itself.
    7.55 p.m.
    The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this Unstarred Question moved by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Daresbury, on his excellent maiden speech; and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, for showing us practical ways in which the restaurant trade can get over these problems and therefore accommodate both smokers and non-smokers.
    In putting the case for the non-smokers, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said that it is the right of non-smokers to eat in peace and comfort without having smoke blown into their faces—he might have added into their food, their lungs, onto their clothes, into their faces and ash flicked onto the food. I do not smoke cigarettes. I occasionally smoke cigars when in the company of Colonel Robbins, the distinguished Wiltshire soldier, who pointed his platoons into battle in Normandy in 1944 waving his cigar in the direction that he wanted them to go. I do take tobacco: I take snuff. If people find the taking of snuff offensive when I am in their company in a restaurant and they tell me so, I refrain. Likewise, I also ask people if they find it offensive and, if so, then I desist.
    I am prompted to take part in this debate for one reason. When I ask questions of the Foreign Office and of the Ministry of Defence I normally roughly know the answer. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in her former capacity as Minister of Health in a Starred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, how much it cost the National Health Service to deal with those who are afflicted with diseases caused by tobacco. I did not know the answer. The answer was given in a written reply because the noble Baroness did not know it. She said that the figure was between £1.4 billion and £1.8 billion a year. That is a considerable sum of money and a large proportion of resources that could be spent elsewhere.
    I return to the point as to whether we should try to ban or to restrict smoking. I am on the side of those who wish to restrict. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, for his ideas. I would like to see restaurants and public places of entertainment take the lead and set an example. The Daily Mirror informs me that several places have banned smoking already, such as Buckingham Palace, Wimbledon and the London Underground. We are all aware that a cigarette caused the ghastly King's Cross accident in which 31 people were killed five or six years ago. Smoking is also banned in public museums, galleries and restaurants. One can go outside if one wishes to smoke.
    I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, who informs us that passive smoking does not cause cancer. The evidence points to the contrary. I hope that the Minister will give us a peep at the end of this debate into the White Paper. I wish to see positive ways in which restaurants and places of entertainment will be encouraged to put in a ventilation system and to provide a grant if necessary. I also hope that we shall be given a little peep to see how we can
    1520
    encourage young people not to smoke. Some of them are already smoking when they become teenagers. Self-regulation is better than legislation.
    8 p.m.
    Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Janner of Braunstone mentioned James I as being a virulent anti-smoker. So was Adolf Hitler. I imagine that my noble friend would not want him as his ally in tonight's debate.
    My noble friend made a moderate speech. Unfortunately his Question is not moderate. He is asking what plans Her Majesty's Government have to ban or restrict smoking in restaurants and other eating and public places—in other words, anywhere to which the public has access. People would not be able to smoke on the roads, on pavements, even outside the 200-mile limit, as well as on beaches, if the Government were stupid enough to agree to this particular Question.
    Smokers are being hounded and demonised by government and other organisations subsidised by government. It is quite unjustified. Indeed, it is cruel. This persecution is based on flawed research concerning environmental tobacco smoke. These flaws were shown up starkly by the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, referred, which said that there was no significant risk to non-smokers' health through ETS. An attempt was made to pigeon hole that report, but it was unsuccessful and the report was published. The findings are clear and unequivocal. They state that ETS, environmental tobacco smoke, is not a risk to the health of non-smokers. Tobacco smoke may be irritating and unpleasant to non-smokers, but the risk to their health is negligible.
    Why pick on the smoker? Enormous damage is caused to the health of people and society through alcohol abuse. Wives are beaten up, there are knifings outside pubs, children are beaten up through alcohol abuse. We hear very little about that. Indeed, people are greatly encouraged to drink even more.
    There is the annual carnage on roads, with billions of pounds lost in destruction of property, not to mention the disease caused by vehicle emissions, especially from diesel vehicles.
    Smokers may or may not do damage to their health—that is a matter for them—but it is now becoming quite clear that the ETS scaremongering has been based on junk and bogus science. It is a disgrace—not only because it has led to unjustified and vicious attacks on smokers but, as Professor Nisson of Stockholm University has said:
    "ETS has been the victim of scientific dogma and this obsession with ETS is preventing research into other causes of cancer".
    As to restaurants, there is much more danger in restaurants from salmonella, lysteria and e-coli than there is—with apologies to the noble Earl, Lord Bradford—from environmental tobacco smoke. Perhaps we ought to concentrate on that.
    8.3 p.m.
    Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I have only three minutes and so I apologise to other noble Lords for not taking up the themes of their speeches.
    At the outset, I must declare that I am totally against banning things and activities. There is far too much of it going on, from beef-on-the-bone to boxing, foxhunting and smoking. The last three are still legal activities, which is as it should be. The police have quite enough to do.
    As to smoking in restaurants, that it is a matter for the restaurant owner. If he or, in his judgment, most of his customers want a smoking-free restaurant, that is entirely up to him. I am glad to hear that ventilation might overcome this problem. I do not believe that the Government have any business in intervening or telling the restaurateur what he should or should not do about this matter on his own premises.
    In my opinion, exactly the same applies to pubs. Indeed, a ban on smoking in all pubs would almost certainly result in 90 per cent. of them being closed down. I do not believe that hardworking and often hard pressed restaurateurs and publicans deserve to be treated in this way.
    When the 1948 anti-foxhunting Bill was debated in the other place, the then Labour Minister of Agriculture, Tom Williams, said:
    "I hope it will not be said that a Labour Government was going round the country finding out what people were doing and telling them not to".
    I also hope that it will not be said in 1998.
    Pressure groups like ASH will never be content until smoking is illegal everywhere, including in the home. Indeed, that situation has almost come to pass, or so I gather, in California, where you are not allowed to smoke within three feet of the window of your own house or in your own garden if another garden is next door to it.
    That is tyranny. I fear that we may be on the road to a similar fate—banned from smoking, drinking more alcohol per week than the Government allows, eating beef, driving our cars, eating sugar and goodness knows what else.
    A recent photograph appeared in the press. It was of an unshaven Frenchman of the Routier variety. He was sitting smoking a Gauloise under a large notice which read:
    "Defense de Fumer"
    I would like to raise a brimming glass of cognac, with an alcohol level well above government guidelines, to salute this splendid guardian of liberty.
    8.6 p.m.
    Viscount Simon: My Lords, I would like to acknowledge the assistance I have received from the National Asthma Campaign and the Department of Respiratory Medicine at Addenbrookes Hospital.
    1522
    Mention has been made of no smoking areas, the definition of which could be those places where tobacco smoke is present but where smokers are not—the smoke itself does not know that it is confined to any particular area and will drift everywhere.
    In the time available it is not possible to mention the fact that about 85 per cent. of the smoke from a lit cigarette goes straight into the air, where it can be passively smoked; nor that tobacco smoke is made up of more than 4,000 chemicals, including some 60 known or suspected carcinogenic chemicals; nor that tobacco smoke causes difficulty for 80 per cent. of asthmatics; nor that the risk of hospitalisation of asthmatic children is greater where a smoker is present; nor that passive smoking during pregnancy may be a greater problem than is generally appreciated; nor that almost 50 children a day under the age of five are admitted to hospital suffering from illness linked to passive smoking, including asthma and bronchitis; nor that there was a 14 per cent. increase of bronchitis in children up to the age of 10 where the mother smoked more than four cigarettes a day, and this figure was increased to 49 per cent. when more than 14 cigarettes were smoked daily; nor that doctors back a ban on smoking in all public places; nor of the evidence of the increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer upon exposure to passive smoking; nor of the chronic respiratory symptoms in adults resulting from passive smoking; nor of the association between maternal cigarette smoking and the cot death syndrome; nor of the effects on infants' growth.
    Every one of these statements is backed by scientific publications and has come from medical sources throughout the world. I have not been made aware of any scientific publications which encourage tobacco smoking and extol its virtues.
    It is often said by smokers that it is their right to smoke—and so it is—but non-smokers do not have choice in respect of inhaling their smoke. I recently developed late onset asthma, and due to sensitivity to tobacco smoke, particularly pipe and cigar smoke, I am unable to go to most eating establishments—including your Lordships' dining rooms and watering holes, which I treat with due caution as I do not want to be very, very unwell—or places of entertainment. The noble Lord, Lord Hams of High Cross, knows personally that I am very adversely affected by passive smoking.
    It is the freedom of smokers to smoke which determines where I and many others can go and, for purely health and NHS cost reasons, I hope that smoking will be curtailed. Ask a smoker dying of lung cancer if he regrets smoking and the answer will probably be no. Ask a non-smoker dying of lung cancer caused by passive smoking if curtailment should be imposed, and the answer will probably be that it should. Some sort of compromise can be achieved, and I hope that it will.
    8.9 p.m.
    Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Janner of Braunstone, with great charm it must be said, asks Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to ban or

    1523
    restrict smoking in restaurants and other public places, other eating places. In what is still, albeit by the skin of its teeth, a free country, I trust that the answer of Her Majesty's Government will be "None at all".
    The right law to determine matters of this sort is the law of supply and demand. If customers object to a smoke-filled atmosphere in restaurant or cafá—and as a light smoker I myself dislike an excessively smoky atmosphere—or, alternatively, if they object to there being no facilities provided for smokers, they have a simple remedy—to boycott the establishment in question, in the same way as those who object to certain advertisements should simply resolve to boycott the goods being advertised rather than run off whining to the preposterous Advertising Standards Authority.
    This simple exercise in determined consumer choice will ensure that before very long all eating places, save the smallest and/or poorest will feel themselves obliged, if only for the sake of economic survival, either to install the efficient and not unreasonably priced smoke extraction systems, which have recently been much improved and perfected, or to provide both smoking and non-smoking areas, as many restaurants and hotels in North America, on the Continent of Europe and indeed in the United Kingdom already do. Reference has already been made to that.
    In a free country, I submit, the state has a right to intervene in such matters only to protect the citizen's health. Despite the contention of the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, the World Health Organisation has recently conceded that passive smoking does not cause cancer and is no serious threat to health, however irritating it may be. To protect people from mere discomfort or annoyance should be no business of the state.
    8.11 p.m.
    Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Janner of Braunstone, for raising this extremely interesting question. I have two interests to declare. The first is that I do enjoy a cigar, particularly after a good dinner, and the second is that I am connected in many ways with various aspects of the hotel, restaurant and licensing trade.
    The noble Lord, Lord Janner, began his speech by saying that if there is one thing smoking is guaranteed to do it is to create statistics. We have certainly had our fill of statistics this evening. I managed to get hold of a copy of the journal of the National Cancer Institute which contains a report on the report to which many noble Lords have referred. It is quite clear that, as in all these things, extremists and those holding extreme views tend to polarise towards the parts of reports they like to read. There are two aspects of the report which strike me. One is the conclusions, which state:
    "Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS".
    The report goes on to quote the interesting statistic that the increased risk from ETS from both spousal and workplace exposure is approximately 20 per cent., but
    1524
    that is to be compared with the risk of lung cancer from actually smoking, which is an increase of tenfold. That puts in measure the degree of risk.
    The most important aspect of this question is whether it should be voluntary or obligatory to have some form of action. In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said that voluntary action simply does not work. I do not believe that to be the case. Today I received a report from the British Hospitality Association. It points out that eight out of 10 hotels in Britain are voluntarily restricting smoking in restaurants. The survey of nearly 700 hotels revealed that half have banned smoking in their restaurants. A further 30 per cent. have created non-smoking areas in their restaurants and nearly half offer non-smoking bedrooms. Great efforts have been made by hotels.
    In his excellent maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Daresbury, referred to a report by the BLRA. The report revealed that the BLRA has been conducting polls through MORI for more, than 25 years. In 1973, 55 per cent. of adults disliked most about pubs a smoky atmosphere. In 1982, the figure was 52 per cent. However, by 1992, that had fallen to 35 per cent. As the number of people and the number of smokers going in are roughly constant, that would indicate that increasing the amount of ventilation and other actions have been successful.
    Ultimately, this should be a matter of choice. It is quite right to restrict smoking wholly in places of work; it is quite right to do it wholly on airlines, where there is no choice; it is quite right to do it wholly in concerts, where people are going to one concert. However, in the matter of hotels, restaurants and pubs, a degree of choice is open to the consumer and people do vote with their feet.
    8.15 p.m.
    Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Janner, for bringing this matter to our attention and also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Daresbury, on his splendid maiden speech. If I am not mistaken, it was he who saved the Aintree race course and also won the Foxhunters' Chase at Aintree over the Grand National course in 1983 on Lone Soldier.
    It may be worth emphasising that those who start smoking as teenagers and go on smoking 20 cigarettes a day have a one in two chance of taking 20 years off their lives. No one can contradict that. As has been pointed out, the statistical evidence incriminating passive smoking is not so clear, but it may be that the risks of heart disease and lung cancer are increased by about 25 per cent. in people who do not smoke but who live with smokers.
    When we come to the risks involved in frequenting restaurants polluted by smoke, clearly the risks are very much less for people who are completely healthy. However, there are two categories of people who are at risk. The first category—I do not think this has been mentioned—is those who actually work in these restaurants all the time. The second category is those customers who are prone to asthma or heart disease, as

    1525
    mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has forgotten that it is well known that people who are prone to asthma can have an asthmatic attack precipitated by quite small quantities of smoke. As everyone is well aware, asthmatic attacks can be very serious indeed and can kill. The presence of smoke in the environment of those suffering from heart disease decreases the amount of oxygen that can be carried in the blood because of the carbon monoxide in the smoke. This may lead to angina. That, too, is certain evidence.
    My impression of smokers over the past decade is that they have become much more considerate to those who do not smoke. The ideal arrangement is to build on this good will and go on developing voluntary codes based on courtesy and sound medical evidence. As small amounts of smoke can be very irritant to the eyes—that is definite—and as small amounts of smoke can cause asthmatic and heart attacks, these people have an incontrovertible right to be in a smoke-free atmosphere in restricted public places. As has been said, it is perfectly possible to have a good ventilation arrangement in restaurants or separate no-smoking areas, but on an airliner it is not possible. Smoking on an airliner will eventually contaminate every person on that flight. Therefore, the answer has to be no-smoking flights.
    Personally, I believe that legislation is to be avoided. It is far too heavy-handed and of course very difficult to enforce. The extension of voluntary restrictions on smoking is a far more sensible solution.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I very much welcome the initiative of my noble friend Lord Janner in allowing us to debate this extremely interesting Question this evening. First, I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Daresbury, on his very clear and effective maiden speech.
    My noble friend Lord Janner, while recognising the Government's action in this area, urges us to go further. I wish to assure my noble friend that the Government are considering carefully their approach to the problem of smoking in public places.
    Smoking results in about 120,000 deaths a year in the UK. It is the largest cause of preventable disease and premature death and adds considerably to the costs of the NHS, as illustrated by the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle. The Government were elected with a clear manifesto commitment to phase out tobacco advertising. On 22nd June, the European Union Council of Ministers formally adopted the directive to ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship which was voted through the Parliament of the European Union on 13th May.
    It is, however, clear that the harmful effects of smoking are not confined to the smoker. This issue has become more prominent as the size of the non-cigarette-smoking majority in the population has increased and as other sources of environmental contamination have diminished.
    The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, spoke about the degree of risk. A clear link with several conditions such as lung cancer and childhood respiratory illness and
    1526
    exacerbation of asthma has emerged. There are several other conditions that current research suggests may be linked with passive smoking, though further evidence is required. My noble friend Lord Simon made many pertinent points on that, although I note the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, and my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
    The fact is that the effects of passive smoking have been reviewed by numerous scientific and medical committees worldwide. All conclude that passive smoking is harmful to the health of non-smokers. In Britain, the Fourth Report of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health was published in 1988 and sought to quantify the dangers.
    The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared environmental tobacco smoke a Class A carcinogen (capable of causing cancer in humans). The findings of those authorities were broadly confirmed in the report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health earlier this year. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that our statisticians confirm that a full reading of the WHO report confirms the findings of several hundred lung cancer deaths every year.
    The Government are fully committed to phasing out tobacco advertising as an essential step in building an effective strategy to deal with smoking and also share the view the people are entitled to breathe air unpolluted by environmental tobacco smoke. We are committed to the creation of a non-smoking environment, with facilities where appropriate for those who wish to smoke, by encouraging suitable voluntary policies on smoking in all enclosed public places.
    In December 1991 the previous government published a code of practice on smoking in public places which provides practical guidance to owners and managers on implementing suitable smoking policies. That code advises that the policy to be adopted should depend in part on the reason the public are visiting the building; that is, whether members of the public are attending out of necessity (or to receive a service) or whether they are attending out of choice. The implementation of a smoking policy is at the discretion of the manager of the facilities and/or provider of services, but in all cases the Government expect efforts to be made to cater for the interests of the non-smoker.
    I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Daresbury, that the majority of people are in favour of some form of smoking control. Smoking restrictions in restaurants have the support of 92 per cent. of non-smokers, 88 per cent. of ex-smokers and 70 per cent. of smokers. There is less support for smoking restrictions in pubs, although 60 per cent. of non-smokers and 52 per cent. of ex-smokers are in favour and even 25 per cent. of smokers would support some kind of restriction.
    Policy on smoking in public places was based on the 1988 advice of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health and set out that non-smoking should be regarded as the norm in enclosed areas frequented by the public or employees, with special provision being made for smokers rather than vice versa. Up to now, government action has been based on a voluntary approach both because it has been considered

    1527
    that people react better to persuasion than regulation and because regulation can be too inflexible to allow individual circumstances to be taken into account.
    In its report published on 11th March, the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health recommended that smoking in public places should be restricted on the grounds of public health. The committee suggested that the level of restriction should vary according to the different categories of public place but that smoking should not be allowed in public service buildings or on public transport, other than in designated and isolated areas. It also recommended that, wherever possible, smoking should not be permitted in the workplace. The conclusions and recommendations of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health are being taken into account in the development of the forthcoming White Paper on tobacco control.
    The Government are fully aware of the health effects of smoking and passive smoking and of the particular difficulties posed by public places. Restrictions are very difficult to enforce without solid public support. As the public and employers become increasingly aware of the scientific evidence of the risks of passive smoking, they contribute to the positive impetus needed to continue to make good progress.
    Virtually all public places are workplaces and the legal duties of employers to protect the health and welfare of non-smoking staff working in places such as pubs and restaurants will be an important factor. What matters is that the manager and/or provider of services or facilities sees the need to take account of the majority who do not smoke and in general do not like having their outing for a meal or a drink in a restaurant or licensed premises being spoilt by inhaling other people's smoke, a point well put by my noble friend Lord Janner and the noble Earl, Lord Bradford.
    We urge landlords and restaurateurs to bring their own voluntary codes to set aside smoke-free zones and also to do all they reasonably can to provide a safe and comfortable place of work for their staff. I thought the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, made some very good points on that.
    The Health and Safety Executive's guidance on passive smoking at work recommends that all employers should have a specific policy on smoking in the workplace. The policy should give priority to the needs of non-smokers who do not wish to breathe tobacco smoke.
    Employers also have legal duties under health and safety law and the guidance explains the implications of that. If a risk to health can be demonstrated—for example, if a worker with a respiratory condition is forced to work in a smoky atmosphere which could make his condition worse—the employer should take action to deal with the risk. Again, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, had some important points to make on that.
    In the public sector, we certainly want to lead by example by controlling smoking in government and public sector premises, including the NHS. Most government and public sector premises including NHS
    1528
    hospitals already have non-smoking policies which either completely ban smoking on the premises or confine it to designated areas. We are considering carefully our approach to the problem of smoking in public places and whether there is a case for new measures.
    The full details of our policy on smoking in public places, together with the timescale for implementation of the tobacco advertising directive in UK law, will be presented as part of a comprehensive tobacco control strategy in a White Paper at the end of this year. My noble friend Lord Haskel and the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, will have to be a little more patient on that.
    The noble Earl, Lord Bradford, spoke about ventilation in restaurants and the noble Lord, Lord Daresbury, referred to the costs to business. It is appreciated that to provide a fully smoke-free environment would for some premises involve a considerable amount of expenditure. For that reason, government officials have been, and will continue to be, involved in detailed discussions with representatives of the licensed trade and restaurant industries.
    There are, however, positive aspects. Besides improved staff health and lower cleaning costs, more pleasant surroundings are likely to attract more customers who are likely to stay longer. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, had much to say of interest about the response of business to that.
    I have noted the comments of noble Lords concerning smoking, in particular, my noble friend Lord Haskel, in the vicinity of your Lordships' House. Smoking is ultimately for the House. I suggest that noble Lords should communicate their views to the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Offices Committee.
    We have heard about the issue of freedom for smokers. My noble friend Lord Stoddart had much to say on that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton. I am no health fascist. Like the noble Lord, Lord Janner, it took me years, and many attempts, to give up smoking. The Government do not seek to ban smoking, but they have a duty to ensure that all smokers are fully aware of the dangers associated with their habit. We recognise, however, that those who do not smoke—almost three-quarters of the population—have the right to breathe air unpolluted by tobacco smoke. We will therefore continue to work towards a situation where non-smoking is the norm, but with provision for smokers where appropriate.
    In conclusion, in the case of public places there is clearly scope to build on the progress made by means of voluntary measures over recent years. The experience in countries which have tried to ban smoking in pubs and restaurants suggests that it is difficult to enforce and may not help in changing public attitudes; but public attitudes have moved an enormously long way in the last 20 or 30 years, and smoke-free public and workplaces are on the increase. Our aim is to go with the grain of public opinion, but building on what has already been achieved. I am convinced that that is the right way to proceed and the most effective way to proceed.

    Northern Ireland Bill
    8.30 p.m.
    House again in Committee.
    Clause 54 [The Commission's functions]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 132:
    Page 26, line 3, at end insert—
    ("() The Commission shall, before the end of the period of two years beginning with the commencement of this section, make to the Secretary of State such recommendations as it thinks fit for improving—

    (a) its effectiveness;

    (b) the adequacy and effectiveness of the functions conferred on it by this Part; and

    (c) the adequacy and effectiveness of the provisions of this Part relating to.").

    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 132 relates to Clause 54, which sets out the functions of the Northern Ireland human rights commission. The clause is designed to reflect the list of functions in paragraph 5 of the Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity section of the agreement. The commission will keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness in Northern Ireland of law and practice relating to the protection of human rights. The Bill does not attempt to restrict the meaning of "human rights". It is deliberately intended to be wide, enabling the commission itself to identify what it considers constitute such rights.
    It will advise the Government and the Executive Committee of measures which ought to be taken for the protection of human rights. The Bill provides that it will see all proposed Assembly Bills and will be able to offer an opinion on whether they are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It will be able to help people whose rights have been denied or abused. It will develop, through education and research, an active human rights culture in Northern Ireland. It will consult and advise as a matter of priority on the drawing up of a Bill of Rights to suit Northern Ireland's particular needs. It will do everything it can to ensure that the North-South human rights committee envisaged by the agreement is set up.
    We have listened carefully to various arguments which have been put, not only in this Chamber this evening but also outside, in many useful conversations and discussions. We have not closed our minds on any issue and therefore we are bringing forward this amendment, which I hope will meet with general agreement and satisfaction, to require the commission not later than two years after establishment to review the adequacy of its powers. I beg to move.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: As I listened to the Minister, I was thinking how good it would be if we could have a body of this kind for Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland to promote a culture of liberty and the full implementation of the rights of the rest of us in this part of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, that is beyond the scope of this Bill although fortunately the Minister has a responsibility in Great Britain as well as in Northern Ireland.
    1530
    This amendment has been included to counter the criticism made by the Committee for the Administration of Justice and other non-governmental groups in Northern Ireland that the new commission has not been given adequate powers. The Government have responded by suggesting that the commission can review its own functions and powers after two years of operation and then recommend changes. Of course we welcome that on the old principle that a quarter of a loaf is better than no bread. But it still falls short of the international standards set out in the UN-sponsored Paris Principles 1991 concerning the status of national human rights commissions where human rights commissions are supposed to be given sufficient powers from the start.
    There is of course no guarantee that the commission will recommend an extension of its powers nor any requirement for the Government, the Assembly or Parliament to act on the commission's recommendations. So while we welcome the amendment wholeheartedly, we very much hope that when we come to the later amendments, including those tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, we will be able to strengthen the existing powers now to be given to the human rights commission rather than wait for the result of a review in two years' time. We therefore support the amendment but will come back to the powers of the commission later.
    Lord Hylton: I welcome the government amendment. It will be helpful, particularly when the commission has had a chance to establish its first priorities for spending money, and then to review how they have worked out in practice. As regards the Paris Principles, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, I would just mention that a piece of work in which I was involved in a minor way and which ended up as a book, published by Macmillan, entitled Human Rights in Great Britain and Ireland—meaning the whole of Ireland, north and south—actually proposed such a commission quite some time in advance of the 1991 text.
    Lord Kingsland: Bearing in mind the practice in the rest of the United Kingdom, we think that the noble Minister has got this matter in his amendment exactly right.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is very generous—not unexpectedly, because the noble Lord is always generous. As I read out the menu I thought that I detected the ghost of times past in the conversations that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and I have had on many occasions, as to his desired menu for the rest of the United Kingdom. All I can say is that this is very, very substantially more than a quarter of a loaf: I think it is a good three-quarters.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 133:
    Page 26, line 3, at end insert—
    ("() The Commission shall be as concerned with issues of discrimination on grounds of age and sexual orientation as they are with other forms of discrimination.").
    The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Morris who is unable to be here this evening. In moving Amendment No. 133 I shall, with permission, also speak to Amendment No. 134.
    Amendment No. 133 deals with a matter which we have dealt with before in Amendment No. 130, which proposes legislation for Northern Ireland to prohibit discrimination on grounds of age or sexual orientation. In reply to earlier criticisms, I would say that in the light of Amendment No. 132, which we have just passed, if the commission is surveying various things about its effectiveness, and so on, it may as well take on board whether these two additional grounds for discrimination are worth including, or not. I certainly think that they are worth including, but I shall not speak any further because I am sure that at this late hour your Lordships will want to make progress.
    Amendment No. 134 proposes that matters referring to an equality commission should be under the human rights commission. Again, I do not want to speak very much about that because my noble friend explained it all in a speech on an earlier occasion. I only wish to say that I strongly support the proposed subsection (1C)(a), which is about resources. The Committee will recall that at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and other speakers, including myself, expressed some anxiety that resources may not be available for what might be called non-controversial grounds for discrimination because they were neglected whereas the more controversial grounds were given more money. I therefore think it is very important that subsection (1C)(a) should be taken seriously. I beg to move.
    Lord Monson: If amendments like Amendment No. 133 are not agreed to, is there not a danger that Northern Ireland, to a greater extent than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, will become a paradise for the politically correct, therefore a paradise for the litigious and hence a paradise for lawyers?
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am sorry that the Minister thinks that I am the ghost of times past; I always felt that I was the spirit of the future. Being an optimist by nature I continue to battle for the same commitment for equality by this Government as was demonstrated by a government I had the honour to serve in 1974 to 1976. We were then a minority government facing an embattled opposition as we sought to legislate for equality.
    I have great sympathy for what is behind these amendments. However, because of the way in which the Government are legislating, I feel that the amendments are being put into the wrong box. Perhaps I can speak about the separate boxes which trouble me.
    It is right to have one body called an equality commission and another called a human rights commission. Each deals with a different aspect of
    1532
    human rights. Equality without discrimination is just as much a basic human right in Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Equality is as much a part of human rights as prohibitions on torture, inhumane treatment or any other fundamental human right. But it is sensible to have a specialist enforcement mechanism to deal with equality without discrimination.
    The problem is that in the scheme of the Bill, which I am beginning to understand, the equality commission is to be a body subordinate to the Assembly whereas the human rights commission will have full constitutional status being accountable to the Secretary of State and the Westminster Parliament.
    Many people would agree that discrimination on grounds of age or sexual orientation is unfair, as is discrimination on any other ground. Therefore it is right that they should come within an equality code and that public authorities in Northern Ireland and everywhere else should be bound not to discriminate on those grounds. Amendment No. 133 is wrong, therefore, to seek to put sexual orientation and age discrimination into the human rights commission box rather than the equality commission box. That is the wrong place. They should be in the equality commission box, provided that what we get is a full-blooded equality commission of the same status as the human rights commission. Logically, discrimination belongs as part of the remit of the equality commission.
    On a rather narrow ground, therefore, I oppose Amendment No. 133 because it is concerned with discrimination and therefore is a matter for the equality commission rather than the human rights commission. But if the Government do not create an equality commission of equivalent status to the human rights commission I would change my mind and regard it as so fundamental to the rights of everyone in Northern Ireland that they be protected from discrimination on any unfair ground that I would rather have it dealt with by the human rights commission than nobody at all. At the moment, therefore, my mind is open. I oppose Amendment No. 133 at this stage as being better dealt with by the equality commission but will wait until a later stage in the debate to see what the Government intend to do about the status of the equality commission, at which time I may return to this subject.
    We are also dealing at this stage with Amendment No. 134. That would dissolve the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Human Rights Council and give their functions to a human rights commission. That would essentially copy what the Government propose to do in establishing the equality commission; that is, give those functions to the human rights commission.
    While I agree that equality rights are a subset of human rights generally, merging all the equality agencies into a conglomerate human rights commission would rightly cause consternation among minorities in Northern Ireland. We have already seen a strong feeling in Northern Ireland among women—the Women's

    1533
    Coalition—the disabled and ethnic minority groups that this amalgamation into the equality commission will lead to a hierarchy of rights and so forth.
    I have been prepared to support the Government in creating a single equality commission on terms I have indicated before. But it would add to the sense of unfairness if the equality agencies were to be amalgamated not just into an equality commission, but also into a human rights commission which will have a vast range of matters to deal with; for example, the entire contents of the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
    I apologise for having taken a few minutes to explain myself, but for those reasons I am opposed to Amendments Nos. 133 and 134, although I entirely understand why they were tabled.
    Lord Kingsland: The Opposition believe that Amendment No. 133 is rather premature. In relation to Amendment No. 134, it would be impertinent of me to add anything to what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, with which I entirely concur.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that if these amendments were agreed it would be a litigious paradise for lawyers. That is a compelling argument for my accepting the amendment. However, I shall resist that temptation.
    We have not strictly defined human rights in the Bill and I am happy to repeat that if the commission chooses to concern itself with human rights involving issues of discrimination it will be free to do so without the need for special provision. We want it to develop organically with its own sense of purpose and priorities in a very difficult situation.
    Amendment No. 134, as has been said, would subsume the functions of the equality commission into the human rights commission. We are trying as far as possible to implement the Belfast agreement, which envisaged an equality commission and a human rights commission as two distinct bodies. I therefore invite my noble friend Lord Desai not to press the amendment.
    Lord Desai: I thank all Members of this Committee who have spoken in the debate. I am reassured by what my noble friend Lord Williams said on Amendment No. 133 and take heart from that. Before I proceed to withdraw the amendment perhaps I may say that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in general in relation to the unequal status of the two bodies should perhaps make him favour equality issues coming under an independent human rights commission, which would have a higher status than an equality commission. However, I shall not press that.
    I see that there is a difference, but eventually I consider these things to be very much a part of the European Convention on Human Rights, the universal declaration or the social and political rights convention and they could be merged. I do not want to press that. I am grateful for my noble friend's comments and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
    Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 135:
    Page 26, line 9, at end insert—
    ("(2A) The Executive Committee of the Assembly shall refer all proposed Bills in draft to the Commission.").
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 135 should perhaps have been inserted earlier in the Bill to replace Clause 11(4)(a) which requires Bills to be sent to the commission as soon as reasonably practicable after introduction.
    The purpose of my amendment is to save time and to enable human rights scrutiny to begin while Bills are still in draft form and therefore are probably more malleable. I trust that this is a simple proposal which is likely to have good and practical consequences.
    In moving Amendment No. 135, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 136 and 138 which stand in my name. These amendments widen the scope of the commission's work slightly by giving it a right to look at, and to comment on, Westminster Bills which could affect human rights in Northern Ireland. As I understand it, "the Secretary of State" mentioned means the Secretary of State responsible for a particular Bill or for the subject matter of a Private Member's Bill. It would be most unfortunate if some oversight here in Westminster or in Whitehall were to prejudice human rights in Northern Ireland. Those amendments, and Amendment No. 137 which is consequential, are intended to prevent such a possibility. I beg to move.
    Lord Archer of Sandwell: The amendments which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, seek to provide that the executive committee of the Assembly shall refer all proposed Bills to the commission. I entirely agree with that. Indeed, I agree with everything that the noble Lord said and, at this time in the evening I do not think that the argument would benefit if I were to repeat what he said.
    I derive a further feeling of comfort from the fact that, following discussion elsewhere, the Bill now provides that the commission shall not have to wait for a request from the Assembly before tendering advice; it may tender unsolicited advice. Those who care about human rights in Northern Ireland are grateful for that. A commission which was not empowered to tender unsolicited advice would be a poor thing indeed.
    I pay tribute to the receptive ears of my noble friends on the Front Bench who have responded to some of our representations. It is always a delight when either my noble friend Lord Dubs or my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn responds to one of our amendments.
    Lord Dubs: Oh!
    Lord Archer of Sandwell: I do not expect that flattery will carry my cause very much further, but I thought that that should be said.

    1535
    I rise to speak simply to my amendment, Amendment No. 136A, which seeks to address the converse anxiety. At present, as I understand it, the Bill would compel the commission to respond to any request for advice from the Executive or the Assembly. Those of us who have been involved with non-governmental organisations, commissions and quangos know that if the commission receives too many requests it may well become over-burdened, especially if its resources are limited—and somehow I do not see this particular coffer being overflowing. The commission could then be inhibited from concentrating on the Bills which it believes demand its concentration. I believe that the commission will be more effective if it has full control over its own workload. I am assuming that normally it will want to respond to requests for advice. However, I believe that it should be left to the commission to apportion its own resources. My amendment would provide that the commission is not bound to respond to every request for advice and, in due course, as at present advised, I shall seek to move it.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I entirely agree with everything that has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. I support Amendment No. 136A, which stands in his name, for the reasons that he has given, including not overloading the human rights commission.
    I entirely agree with the aim of Amendment No. 135. I simply wonder whether the matter could be dealt with without writing it on the face of the Bill but by an undertaking being given by the Government that they would expect all proposed Bills to be referred to the human rights commission before publication. Perhaps the standing orders of the Assembly should be amended to ensure compliance with that. Obviously, it is sensible for all proposed Bills to be referred to the human rights commission before publication—that is, before public positions have been taken up—rather as in France the Council of State considers draft legislation at an early stage.
    On Amendment No. 137, I believe that, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, its provisions would be a time-consuming and oppressive remedy and I would not favour that.
    The provisions of Amendment No. 138 would make sense because the Westminster Parliament will still have the ability to enact legislation that may affect human rights in Northern Ireland and therefore it seems sensible to enable the human rights commission to comment on Westminster legislation of that kind. Westminster would retain the obligation to observe international human rights conventions, but it would be logical for the commission also to have that function.
    Lord Kingsland: I have some reservations about the executive committee referring all proposed Bills to the commission in draft. It seems to me as a matter of principle to contravene the separation of powers. Informal discussions between the commission and the executive committee would be perfectly proper. In my
    1536
    view, the development of such a practice would meet adequately the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.
    On the other hand, I entirely endorse what lies behind the drafting of subsection (3A) as suggested in Amendment No. 136A. The obligation for the commission to advise the Assembly on every Bill would be not only excessively onerous on the commission, but also, in terms of the business of the Assembly, excessively onerous on the Assembly. For that reason, I am greatly attracted by the amendment and urge the Government to consider it seriously.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made because I do not think that the end purpose towards which we are working differs between us. Essentially, it is a matter of emphasis and judgment.
    Perhaps I may deal with the amendments in sequence. Amendments Nos. 135, 136, 137 and 138 stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. They would add to the existing requirement in Clause 11 for the Assembly to refer a copy of each Bill, as soon as reasonably practicable, to the Northern Ireland human rights commission. One of the commission's key functions is to consider draft legislation referred to it by the Assembly. We think that Clause 11 has got it about right. It requires that all legislation be referred to the commission, but with the commission having the appropriate and necessary freedom to give its advice only when it thinks necessary, except in those cases where the Assembly specifically requests such advice. If the Assembly so decides, it could refer proposed legislation to the commission at a much earlier stage. For those reasons, which I have given shortly, I believe that Clause 11 has got it about right, bearing in mind that we want the Assembly to have discretion within appropriate parameters.
    The amendments would also require Bills introduced in Parliament to be submitted to the commission if they appear to affect human rights in Northern Ireland. We do not think that that is necessary because Westminster Bills will be subject to the regime proposed in the Human Rights Bill to ensure that Ministers consider their compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. As is well known to the Committee, in the future every Minister introducing a Bill will have to certify compatibility or non-compatibility with the convention. That will be part of a Minister's duties when introducing a Bill.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I understand what he has just said, but that applies only to the European Convention on Human Rights. A great gap in that convention is that the guarantee of equality without discrimination is much weaker than under Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Therefore, that mechanism of certifying Bills will be confined to only the European Convention on Human Rights, not the covenant. There will therefore be a gap in that element of parliamentary scrutiny. I wonder whether that might be considered hereafter.
    9 p.m.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I certainly undertake to consider that. The answer to the noble Lord's point—which I think is a fair one in terms of being accurately descriptive—is that any government are free, without special provision, to send future Westminster Bills in draft to the commission for comment. I refer to a point that was made earlier; namely, that one does not want to overload the commission in the early stages when it will have a vast workload. That is an important point which I believe was made by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell.
    Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to my noble friend for apparently agreeing with my argument. If I now appear to be backpedalling it is because I think there is a danger in what he has just said. Human rights are not a purely academic exercise. It is important that someone who is close to the grassroots and to the daily life of people should be able to advise on where human rights bite. Would not there be that advantage in submitting them to the commission in Northern Ireland, which would not have to respond?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is an advantage in that. Equally, there is an advantage in flexibility and looking at the organic development of the commission's work in Northern Ireland where conditions are quite different historically and presently from experience in the rest of the United Kingdom. We all know that, otherwise we would not be discussing this Bill. Therefore we oppose these amendments. We think they are unduly prescriptive.
    Amendment No. 136A stands in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. It requires the executive committee to refer all proposed Bills to the commission in draft. However, it also requires the Assembly to take into account the commission's advice on the human rights compatibility of the proposed Bill. We do not think that requirement ought to exist and we do not think that the Assembly should be required to take into account the advice of the commission. There is a difficulty that if the commission is overburdened and delays giving advice, the passage of legislation which might otherwise be desirable could be held up. The agreement does not of course say anything about the Assembly having a duty to take the commission's advice into account.
    I do not always regard the agreement as holy writ but it is extremely important beyond its own wording. The agreement was concluded with great difficulty. The agreement provides at page 17 only that the commission should consider draft legislation referred to it by the Assembly. The existing clause reflects the agreement. I do not say this out of faintheartedness—I think I have a deeper purpose—but one wants to be extremely cautious (I think the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, mentioned this earlier in our discussions) in going outside the ambit of the agreement.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the Minister sits down, I wish to make a comment which I hope is helpful in considering this amendment. Am I right in thinking that
    1538
    whatever we do on this Bill it would still be open to Parliament to create the Select Committee on human rights that has been promised or indicated in the Government's White Paper on the Human Rights Bill, and that that Parliamentary Select Committee could be given the function, if Parliament so wished, of scrutinising measures of the Westminster Parliament to ensure that they are compatible with human rights in the wide sense?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am obliged for that helpful indication. As the noble Lord will know, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his Second Reading speech in introducing the Human Rights Bill in your Lordships' House—I paraphrase, I think fairly, as I had something to do with the drafting of the measure—that we would give a fair wind to any proposal to set up either a Commons committee, a Lords committee or a Joint parliamentary Committee to deal with these matters. That remains the Government's position. It seems to me that that Joint Committee—if it is set up—would have whatever remit it decided was appropriate at that time. I am happy to give that understanding.
    Lord Hylton: I am grateful for everything that has been said on this group of amendments. I should have underlined earlier that the Belfast agreement at paragraph 5 on page 17 specifically refers to the submission of Bills in draft. I can go along with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the submission of these Bills in draft should, or might be, covered by standing orders of the Assembly. I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber—I stand open to correction, however—who can deliver such a commitment on behalf of the Assembly. Having said that, it is quite possible that the drafting of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, is superior to mine. I have an open mind on that. However, I should now withdraw Amendment No. 135. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
    Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 136A:
    Page 26, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
    ("(3) The Executive Committee shall refer all proposed Bills to the Commission in draft.
    (3A) The Commission may advise the Assembly whether a proposed Bill is compatible with human rights as the Commission thinks appropriate.
    (3B) The Assembly shall take such advice into account when considering the proposed Bill.").
    The noble and learned Lord said: It is a lesson which I learned long ago, but constantly forget, that the longer one's amendments, the longer is the flank which is exposed to attack. What I really wanted to propose was that the commission may respond rather than shall respond. However, I promise to read carefully what my noble friend has said. For the moment I shall not move Amendment No. 136A.
    [Amendment No. 136A not moved.]
    [Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 not moved.]
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 139:
    Page 26, line 24, at end insert—
    ("() For the purpose of exercising its functions under this section the Commission may conduct such investigations as it considers necessary or expedient.").
    The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 139 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 140 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Government Amendment No. 139 states:
    "For the purpose of exercising its functions under this section the Commission may conduct such investigations as it considers necessary or expedient".
    This amendment has been tabled in response to many representations that have been made to us. We found the arguments to be persuasive and therefore adopted them and incorporated them in this amendment. Above all, it is designed to be a facilitating amendment. As I said, we have had many representations. They were carefully considered and we found them to be persuasive. The commission may want to consult affected individuals. It may want to carry out research into specific incidents, or indeed a pattern of activity.
    The basis of Amendment No. 140 is that the commission may have certain powers, including the power of compulsion in respect of the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. A number of noble Lords have on different occasions said that the commission should be able to obtain information under compulsion if necessary even where no individual is alleging that his or her human rights have been breached or even where no case is being brought before the courts. Not all, but a number of Northern Ireland parties have supported that. We do not want the commission to be a toothless body. However, our overriding purpose is to implement the Good Friday agreement. The agreement is silent as to whether the commission should have available to it formal powers of compulsion. There is a good deal of detail filled in about where the agreement is silent. However, in all significant areas we have looked for—and by and large have achieved—consensus.
    My honourable friend the Minister of State has had extensive consultations with the parties to the agreement. Most supported the sort of powers advocated in this amendment. However, we do not believe that there is a sufficient consensus. Therefore, having come to a fairly careful conclusion, we believe it would be wrong to re-open this issue. We are sympathetic to the point underlying Amendment No. 140. I know that and understand it well even before the noble Lord develops his theme. However, we believe that it is wrong to proceed in this Bill where there is not a sufficient consensus. I hope that our open-minded view on Amendment No. 139 may reassure noble Lords that to press Amendment No. 140 at this time would not be sensible or prudent. I beg to move.
    Lord Hylton: I submit that my Amendment No. 140 is superior to Government Amendment No. 139 on two grounds. First, it is slightly more precise in that it limits investigations to breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 and to offences arising under Clauses 61 and 62
    1540
    of this Bill. That might well be far enough to go, at least during the first two years of the new commission's existence. I should add that Clauses 61 and 62 are specific to Northern Ireland, concerning as they do discrimination and unlawful oaths.
    Secondly, my amendment has teeth in it, unlike that of the Government. These would enable it to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents in ways similar to those that have always been available to the High Court. My understanding is that the Fair Employment Commission and the ombudsman already have similar powers at the present time. I cannot see how the human rights commission can be sure of properly investigating uncooperative people without such powers. I believe that the comparable commission in Australia has such powers but in practice has been able to use them only sparingly.
    If on consideration the Government conclude that some saving for national security in Northern Ireland is required, I should be willing to consider a further amendment. I commend my amendment to the Committee.
    Lord Archer of Sandwell: My noble friend has again been handsomely forthcoming. I hope that he will not think that some of us who are pressing him to go further are simply being tiresome. I appreciate the argument that it might be counter-productive to press the matter further than the agreement goes. I take that point fully on board. Perhaps I may suggest that when my noble friend comes to reflect on this matter there is an argument on the other side; namely, the disaster that would follow if it transpired that the commission was ineffective. It needs to have an effective path to investigate if it is to fulfil its other functions.
    Let us briefly examine three of its functions. It is there to provide advice to the Secretary of State and to the executive committee. It is difficult to see how it can do that effectively unless it can investigate where the breaches are occurring. Otherwise, the advice is likely to be concerned not with the real world but with a somewhat academic exercise—I say academic exercise, but I must break myself of a habit of calling something academic when I mean that it does not really matter. I apologise to my academic friends. It would be a somewhat theoretical exercise.
    Its second purpose is to give assistance to individuals. Again, that assistance is presumably with regard to pursuing specific complaints. How is it to decide what complaints should be pursued, and how, if it cannot investigate effectively?
    Thirdly, it is to promote understanding and awareness of the importance of human rights. That can be effective only in relation to matters where human rights are being infringed or denied. This is not about understanding of a set of jurisprudential principles; it is about respect for the practical needs and feelings of individuals in everyday life.
    Those purposes embrace a wide spectrum of situations. Some will require only a very minor investigation: they may require listening to someone making a complaint or asking someone questions to

    1541
    which the answers will be readily forthcoming. They may entail a much wider investigation, requiring people to give advice, information and assistance. I hope the powers would be used with restraint. Unless they are available where they are needed, it may well transpire that the commission will be ineffective. I do not say that dogmatically. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will not press his amendment tonight, but that is a question for him. This is a matter on which we should all reflect; the arguments are by no means all one way.
    9.15 p.m.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I speak in the same spirit as all who have spoken so far in the debate. We are all trying to make these provisions in the Bill effective without going further than is necessary.
    I greatly welcome Amendment No. 139, which shows precisely the open-minded attitude that Ministers have indicated in this Chamber as regards this part of the Bill. The problem with the amendment is that, although it empowers the human rights commission to,
    "conduct such investigations as it considers necessary or expedient",
    it does not spell out any specific powers that are needed when the going gets tough.
    I have hesitations about giving any body subpoena powers. We did it in respect of the equal opportunities commissions, the commissions for racial equality, the fair employment commission and, I think, the Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Those subpoena powers have been carefully drawn so that they apply only in cases of suspected unlawful conduct, and they are subject to judicial control. In other words, there has to be, where necessary, an order from a court of competent jurisdiction before the powers can be exercised. Those safeguards seem to me to be essential. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, bodies that have these powers have rarely found them necessary in practice. The existence of the powers usually induces sensible bodies and individuals to co-operate without the powers having to be exercised. I can think of scarcely a single instance since the mid-1970s when subpoena powers have been necessary, but their existence in carefully defined circumstances has undoubtedly promoted the effectiveness of an investigation.
    If we resist the spirit of Amendment No. 140 and do nothing to add to the provisions in Amendment No. 139 during the Bill's passage through this House, a strange situation will result. The equality commission, which will inherit the powers of the existing equality agencies, will have subpoena powers under the fair employment, sex discrimination and race relations legislation. Under the terms of Clause 61, religious discrimination by a public authority is not a matter which comes within the remit of the equality commission. A public authority may be discriminating on religious grounds in breach of Clause 61, but there are to be no subpoena powers where there is suspected unlawful conduct in breach of that clause, yet subpoena powers are to be enjoyed by the equality commission where there is suspected unlawful religious, sex or racial discrimination by an employer. I do not believe that that makes much sense. I believe that we should try to produce rational and consistent
    1542
    powers to make absolutely sure that there are safeguards for those who are being investigated and we do not make martyrs of people by giving excessive powers or inadequate judicial protection.
    In short, I strongly support the Government's amendment and also the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. However, I believe that further consideration should be given to ways of tightening up the provision so that the human rights commission is endowed with no more powers than are strictly necessary to ensure the effectiveness of its investigations. Obviously, to have access to relevant information is crucial, and when dealing with a recalcitrant, cantankerous, obstinate or stupid respondent the commission requires reserve powers to deal with the matter. One hopes that those powers will never be exercised, but if they are not put into the Bill at all one may produce an ineffectual commission which will be a tragedy for the whole enterprise.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: In all such matters I bow to the sound judgment of the Minister and other noble Lords who are learned in the law. One wonders whether the Amendment No. 149 powers undermine to some extent the judiciary in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords with first-hand knowledge of legal matters in Northern Ireland will concede that the Northern Ireland judiciary has been the one solid rock throughout all the decades of troubles.
    I agree with the Minister that the Government have an obligation to implement the Good Friday agreement in full. I suggest that there are some serious dangers if they go beyond that into what has been very reasonably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The commission would be under constant pressure to use these draconian powers if Parliament granted them and it would be very difficult for it to resist all-corners. To revert to a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I am afraid that this may become something of an industry.
    As to the matter raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, based on first-hand knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland in which he has taken a very great interest he will admit that in its previous incarnation the Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which is now to be phased out, has proved to be extremely effective. I am equally optimistic and hopeful about what is proposed in the Bill.
    Lord Kingsland: The Opposition support Amendment No. 139 and congratulate the Government on introducing it. As far as Amendment No. 140 is concerned, I am inclined to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, rather than that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. As time goes by it may well be desirable to put flesh on the generally expressed power to investigate under Amendment No. 139; but we should move towards that in stages and react to the experience of the commission over time.
    It strikes me that the drafting of Amendment No. 140 almost produces an institution that mirrors the powers of a court. So trenchant are these powers that, were they

    1543
    ever introduced, it is to be hoped that the exercise of them would itself be subject to the human rights provisions.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am a member of the Northern Ireland Bar. I am more than happy to endorse what was said courteously by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. The judiciary in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years has been a body of extraordinary courage, quality and independence. Every lawyer to whom I have ever spoken, whatever his private political beliefs, has been able to endorse that.
    Amendment No. 139 gives a wide remit, and that is deliberate. I take the point about Australia. I am familiar with the Australian commissioner, Mr. Sedoti, who has done excellent work. But in Northern Ireland at present we are inching forward slowly by consent.
    I think that I can say four things which should be of assistance to allay some fears. First, the Government will fully co-operate with any investigation undertaken by the commission. We will provide it with any information and any necessary documents subject only to proper adequate arrangements to protect information where confidentiality is necessary to safeguard national security, public safety and public order. I believe that that is an important undertaking which I willingly give.
    Secondly, if the commission considers that it is being truly frustrated in obtaining the necessary information, we would expect the commission to say so robustly and to draw that to the attention of Parliament and the Assembly in the context of a failure to co-operate. It is then open either to the Assembly or to either House of Parliament here to take up the investigation and use its own powers to compel witnesses and the production of documents. We would not expect the commission to be shy in doing that.
    Thirdly—I make this absolutely plain—the Government have not closed their mind on this issue. Indeed, we are sympathetic to the arguments advanced by noble Lords. That is why we brought forward amendments to require the commission, not later than two years after its establishment—it is a quite tight timescale—to review the adequacy of its powers. This is not the long grass syndrome; quite the reverse. Two years is quite short in the lifetime of such a commission.
    Fourthly, if the commission reported that it had been frustrated in carrying out its work, we believe that that would offer a powerful case for legislation to deal with the absence of the powers. And if there were broad consensus among the Assembly that the commission should have additional powers, I undertake that the Government will look sympathetically at legislation to provide them.
    I think that the wide remit and those four observations and undertakings I have given are pretty strong and, I hope, acceptable.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
    Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 140:
    After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—

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

    (a) the Human Rights Act 1998, or

    (b) section 61 or 62 of this Act,

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

    (a) the attendance and examination of witnesses, and

    (b) the production of documents.

    (5) If any person without lawful excuse obstructs the Commission or any officer of the Commission in the performance of their or his functions under this section, or is guilty of any act or omission in relation to any investigation under this section which, if that investigation were a proceeding in the Court, would constitute contempt of court, the Commission may certify the offence to the Court.
    (6) Where an offence is certified under subsection (5), the Court may inquire into the matter and deal with the person referred to in that subsection in any manner in which the Court could deal with him if he had committed the like offence in relation to the Court.
    (7) If, after conducting an investigation under this section, it appears to the Commission appropriate, they may lay a special report before each House of Parliament and the Assembly.
    (8) In this section "Court" means the High Court in Northern Ireland.").
    The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I am sure that he will be well aware that the old Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights is a totally different animal from the proposed new human rights commission. They are barely comparable. I beg to move.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: There is a certain ancestry. I believe that it has established a fairly good model with good foundations for future development.
    Lord Hylton: I do not deny that. I am grateful to the Minister for the four assurances he gave. However, I hope that between now and Report stage it might be possible to draw together the best points arising from Amendment No. 139 and my amendment, Amendment No. 140, in order to come forward with something new.
    We have yet to consider later amendments standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, which concern judicial review and injunctions. Those may go some way to meeting the points I sought to raise about investigations and compulsory powers.
    Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.30 p.m.
    Clause 55 [Assistance to individuals]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 141:
    Page 26, line 34, leave out from ("to") to end of line 38 and insert—

    ("(a) proceedings involving law or practice relating to the protection of human rights which a person in Northern Ireland has commenced, or wishes to commence; or

    (b) proceedings in the course of which such a person relies, or wishes to rely, on such law or practice.").

    The noble Lord said: Government Amendment No. 141 widens the ambit of the clause so that the commission will be able to assist persons in any proceedings which, in the view of the commission, involve the law or practice relating to the protection of human rights.
    We want to give the commission a wide discretion. That is why we have brought the amendment forward. The commission will therefore be free to assist persons in cases beyond those involving breaches of rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and under what I hope will become the Human Rights Act. That was all that the Bill as originally drafted allowed. It is our intention that it should be free to assist in cases involving breaches of Clauses 61 and 62 of the Bill which deal with discrimination by public authorities and the making of unlawful oaths.
    The width of the commission's remit means that there may well be some overlap with the remit of the equality commission. The Government therefore propose that the way to address the proper relationship between the commission and other relevant bodies should be in a non-statutory "memorandum of understanding" agreed between the Government and the commission and by separate non-statutory arrangements agreed between the two commissions.
    I hope that the changes which the Government propose to the clause will enable the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Lester, not to seek to press Amendments Nos. 142 and 143.
    Amendments Nos. 144 to 148 are technical improvements which ensure that the Bill allows the commission to assist "persons" rather than simply "individuals". I beg to move.
    Lord Archer of Sandwell: Once again we are engaged in dialogue. That will go into my diary. My noble friend's amendment addresses the same point as the amendment that I shall seek to move. We do not provide quite the same answer.
    Clause 55 is about the power of the commission to assist an individual in bringing proceedings. Subsection (1) defines the proceedings for which assistance may be given. As my noble friend said, as at present defined it is limited to proceedings under the Human Rights Act. He seeks to extend that as he indicated.
    I appreciate that my attempt to address the problem goes wider and is subject to the criticism indicated earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that there would
    1546
    be an overlap between the jurisdiction of the commission and the jurisdiction of the equality commission.
    The reason why I thought the overlap might be a price worth paying was that the question arises: what would be the position if the same individual sought to rely both on the provisions of the Human Rights Act, or the further provisions which my noble friend has extended to that subsection, and the legislation relating to discrimination? It would be absurd if someone needed to go first to the human rights commission for assistance with one part of his claim and then solemnly to the equality commission for assistance with the other part, particularly if both were involved in the same proceedings.
    I have considered my noble friend's amendment and I very much welcome it. Given the scheme of the Bill, I wonder whether it would meet the situation which I have endeavoured to indicate. I believe that my noble friend has now very helpfully made it clear that it is not intended to go more widely into the sphere of anti-discrimination than most of us thought. In those circumstances, if it is the Government's intention that the power should not apply, I believe that we are entitled to ask the Minister how he would address the problem of the proceedings which embrace both sets of provisions.
    I noted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I certainly would not pretend that my drafting is an improvement on his. At this stage I am content to await the debate and then we can see how to proceed from there. I believe it is right that we pay tribute to the Government. In another place Mr. Paul Murphy indicated that the Government were going to reflect on this matter in the interim period, and clearly they have done so. I am sure that they are not surprised that we also have reflected, together with a number of people closely concerned with human rights in Northern Ireland. It may be that together we can deal with the problems which exist without necessarily trespassing on the ground that troubles my noble friend.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I pay tribute to the Government for tabling Amendment No. 141. Before I come to that may I say in response to the earlier debate that I, too, am a member of the Northern Ireland Bar, which I regard as an enormous privilege. I pay particular tribute to the independence and impartiality of the judges there, who are among the bravest people I have ever had the privilege of knowing. They have managed to uphold the rule of law in terrible circumstances and at great personal deprivation.
    I support Amendment No. 141. I wish that we had something like it for the people of England, Wales and Scotland. I say that because I have been depressed to read a ministerial response to a Question for Written Answer in which I asked whether, under the Human Rights Act, the Government would instruct their counsel not to ask for costs except in abusive or vexatious cases brought under the Human Rights Act. The answer was that they intended to instruct their counsel to ask for costs from unsuccessful applicants under that Act. Of course, in Northern Ireland the position would be quite different, because under Amendment No. 141 the human

    1547
    rights commission will have the power to give financial assistance for proceedings brought under the Human Rights Act and under the Northern Ireland Act. In the end I hope that we shall find something similar on this side of the Irish Sea so that we can enjoy genuine access to justice here as well.
    Subject to clarification from the Minister, it seems to me that Amendment No. 141 is wide enough to cover what is in Amendments Nos. 142 and 143. Amendment No. 141 covers assistance for proceedings involving law or practice relating to the protection of human rights. I take it that that includes proceedings for unlawful religious discrimination by public authorities and everything else which is in Amendment No. 142 or 143. For example, in Amendment No. 143, which is my own amendment, I assume that it will include action contrary to Section 6(2)(e) of the Act—
    Lord Archer of Sandwell: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me. I thought that originally. I was somewhat troubled because I believe there is some ambiguity about it. To some extent that was resolved by my noble friend Lord Williams, who said that that was not the Government's intention and that they did not intend to cover the whole area of discrimination.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful. If that is right, speaking for myself, I do not mind whether the equality commission or the human rights commission has the power to grant individuals assistance for access to justice as long as one or other of them has that power. I do not mind if the matter is dealt with by administrative arrangements between each commission and the Government. That seems to me to be perfectly sensible. All I am concerned about is that there should not be a hole in the middle. In other words, any breaches of human rights law, including the equality code, should be capable of being assisted either by the human rights commission or by the equality commission, with suitable dovetailing arrangements to avoid wasteful duplication. Provided that we can get those assurances, it then becomes purely a matter of plumbing of machinery.
    The key question is: are individuals, including companies, because of the addition of the word "person" as a substitution for "individual", who are victims of human rights violations—whether of quality of treatment or in other ways—able to be assisted in meritorious cases by a statutory agency? Provided that the answer to that is yes, I would not wish to move Amendment No. 143. That would mean that the Government ensure that that is covered by one means or another and I would therefore be entirely satisfied so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. I will continue to grumble with increasingly cantankerous noises if the Government do not do the same or similar on this side of the Irish Sea.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: It may be that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, misheard me or I did not speak sufficiently clearly. I did say that under Amendment No. 141 it was our intention that the
    1548
    commission could assist cases under Clauses 61 and 62 of the Bill. I do not think that there is a hole in the middle. Our amendment is a wide and generous one. I will consider very carefully the points—which are of some technical detail—which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, have put. If we feel that we are not sufficiently astute in our present construction of Amendment No. 141—I think we are—it does not do any harm to think again.
    Lord Archer of Sandwell: Perhaps I too failed to make myself clear. What was troubling me was that the sections that were mentioned were to be confined to public authorities. They do not seem to deal with discrimination by private individuals.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is so. I wanted to make it clear that I had referred to Clauses 61 and 62. Amendment No. 141 does not restrict itself to public authorities. I will think quite carefully again, together with the officials who have spent so much labour and time and enormous expertise in considering these matters. If we are wrong—I do not think we are—then we will return to the matter on Report.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the Minister sits down, could he also include Clause 6(2)(e) and Clause 19 (1)(c) as well as Clauses 61 and 62. I wholly welcome inserting "person" instead of "individual"—I have not spoken to that—and I wholly welcome Amendments Nos. 144 to 148, which seem very sensible.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take all those points on board and undertake that either I or, preferably, my noble friend Lord Dubs will deal with them when we come to Report. In the meantime I commend Amendment No. 141.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment Nos. 142 and 143 not moved.]
    Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 144 to 148:
    Page 26, line 39, leave out ("individual") and insert ("person").
    Page 27, line 1, leave out ("individual") and insert ("person").
    Page 27, line 3, leave out ("individual's") and insert ("person's").
    Page 27, line 13, leave out ("an individual") and insert ("a person").
    Page 27, line 14, leave out ("individual") and insert ("person").
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
    Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 149:
    After Clause 55, insert the following new clause—

    POWER TO SEEK RESTRAINING INJUNCTION
    (" . Where the Commission consider that a person is likely to engage in conduct that will lead to a persistent breach of the provisions of—

    (a) the Human Rights Act 1988, or

    (b) section 61 or 62 of this Act,

    they may apply to the High Court for an injunction preventing that person from such conduct; and the High Court, if satisfied that the

    1549
    application is well founded, may grant the injunction sought in the terms applied for or in such more limited terms as it considers appropriate.").
    The noble and learned Lord said: As we are all giving some biographical details, perhaps I should add myself to the list of those who are privileged to be members of the Northern Ireland Bar. I too would like to add to the very real tributes which have been paid to the moral and physical courage of the Northern Ireland judiciary, some of whom I am privileged to number among my friends.
    This amendment approaches from a slightly different angle the question of the ability of the commission to engage in litigation. Amendment No. 149 seeks to deal with the situation where there has not merely been one isolated infringement of human rights but a pattern of violations. In fact, I was tempted to make the point by inserting the word "persistent" before the word "breach", but I resisted it because the necessity of establishing a persistent pattern has in the past sometimes given rise to difficulties.
    If this power is not included, I suspect there will be occasions when a remedy which has sometimes been effective may not be available. I note Amendment No. 150 in the name of my noble friend Lord Morris and I am grateful for the reflections which have obviously been afforded to our representations. That amendment does not specifically refer to injunctions. It may be that I am being unduly cautious and that it would include injunctions, but I should be grateful for my noble friend's reflections on that.
    Perhaps I may, with the Committee's leave, discuss with Amendment No. 149 Amendments Nos. 150 and 151. Amendment No. 151 takes a stage further our debates about the power of the commission to engage in litigation. I appreciate that Clause 56 accords with the policy of the Human Rights Act to confine the right of action to victims. I appreciate the reasoning behind that. But, as I understand it, the Human Rights Act does not address the power of a commission of the kind we are discussing here. It would be very strange if the commission did not have power to undertake litigation of its own accord and not necessarily have to wait for the victim.
    I say that for two reasons. First, an individual victim may be reluctant to initiate proceedings. He may be threatened; or, even if he is not specifically threatened, he may be intimidated or he may be under pressure from a peer group. Secondly, an assault on human rights may be directed at a group or class of people. I appreciate the amendment which the Government have moved to extend the protection to persons as opposed to individuals, but that would not necessarily include groups or classes. For those reasons, I would ask that the restriction to a victim of an infringement should be extended at least a little. I am content at this late stage to await what my noble friend says about this. For the moment, I beg to move.
    9.45 p.m.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Amendment No. 149 gives the human rights commission the same power as is already given to the EOC, the CRE and the FEC, all of which, in the equality field—certainly the CRE and
    1550
    the EOC—can bring proceedings to deal with persistent unlawful conduct by seeking an injunction. Therefore, it seems to be entirely appropriate that the human rights commission should have no less a power, where necessary, to deal with a persistent breach by seeking the order of the court. That is very rarely needed in practice but it is an important power to have within its armoury.
    Amendment No. 150 may be better dealt with by Amendment No. 151, which stands in my name as well as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.
    Amendment No. 151 seeks to give the equality commission or the human rights commission the power to bring enforcement proceedings in the same way as a Law Officer may do so.
    First, there seems to be an omission from the Human Rights Bill to which I have drawn attention in correspondence. I do not know whether it has been put right in another place; it is that, whereas the Law Officers have the power under the devolution legislation to bring enforcement proceedings in respect of breaches of human rights by devolved public authorities, there is no similar power under the Human Rights Bill itself. That seems to me to be an unfortunate gap. It may be caused simply by a failure to read across from the devolution legislation to the human rights legislation.
    It seems to me that the great advantage of Amendment No. 151 is that without completely destroying the narrow victim test, to which I take strong objection but am stuck with because that has already been agreed to in the Human Rights Bill, this ensures that specialist equality and human rights commissions are able to bring public interest litigation to secure compliance with the law of the land just as may the Law Officers. That seems to me to be entirely right. It means that public interest litigation will be brought by the public authorities which are dealing with strategic law enforcement and they may do so whether together with or separate from Law Officers. For those reasons, I hope that in one form or another the Government will agree that there should be the capacity to deal with persistent breaches and the capacity for strategic public interest litigation to be brought in the name of one or other of the two new commissions.
    Lord Kingsland: The wonderful thing about participating in a debate on human rights when the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is present is that he does almost all one's work for one. I should add only that I agree entirely with his analysis. We support Amendments Nos. 149 and 151.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry to be disappointing because this is the last amendment of the evening but my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, are right to assume that I shall adhere to the policy which was adopted in our many long debates and discussions in the Chamber and outside it over many months, if not years, on the Human Rights Bill.

    1551
    As has been rightly indicated, Amendment No. 149 would enable the commission to bring cases on its own behalf and to seek restraining injunctions if a person were likely to engage in conduct which would lead to a persistent breach without having a specific victim. We believe—and this is the theme on which we have expanded in the Human Rights Bill context—that breaches of human rights affect individuals and are best judged by their effect on the individual. If the commission wishes to test a point in court, it would not be difficult in practice to find someone who had been adversely affected and therefore fell within the victim bracket. That is the policy that we have adopted on the Human Rights Bill. I cannot expand on the policy reasons because they have been expanded at length if not ad nauseam on many previous occasions.
    Amendment No. 151 relates to Clause 56. As drafted it is designed to keep the Northern Ireland Bill in line with the approach to the bringing of proceedings that the Government have adopted in the Human Rights Bill. As both noble Lords indicated, that does not allow an individual to bring proceedings unless that individual would be a victim for the purposes of the convention. The exceptions to the rule in this Bill relate simply to the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and the Lord Advocate. It is a very limited exception; namely, when they need to bring devolution proceedings under Schedule 11 in respect of legislation or actions which are or may be contrary to the convention. If this amendment were accepted—and I am not able to accept it for the reasons I have shortly given—that would add to the list of persons who could bring victimless proceedings. We have decided in the past to resist that approach. Consistency is not always the hobgoblin of lesser minds, but on this occasion I have to be consistent.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Lord sits down, dealing with the principle of consistency, is there any consistency in allowing the equality commission, with the powers it inherits from the EOC and the CRE, to bring proceedings for persistent discrimination without there being an individual victim, while not empowering the human rights commission or the equality commission to do so? Where the persistent discrimination is religious discrimination arising under the Human Rights Bill, will the noble Lord consider whether consistency might not suggest in that narrow area—I take the point about human rights violations generally—that there should be a power to seek an injunction where the discrimination is arising under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, as embodied in this Bill, where one is dealing with government discrimination, as it were, by public authorities of one kind or another?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think the noble Lord has a point there. The consistency I was pointing to was that we have adopted this stance or this platform on the
    1552
    Human Rights Bill in the context of England and Wales, and I am not able to depart from that concluded policy decision in this respect.
    Lord Hylton: Before the movers of either of these amendments decide to do with them, could I as a non-lawyer raise a small point? I have noticed that no one this evening has mentioned a thing called an amicus curiae brief. As a non-lawyer, I am not at all clear what that involves or entails, but I wonder whether it could be at all helpful to the subject matter of either of these amendments.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: We only have an amicus brief if there are proceedings already extant. On the scheme that we offer there are not likely to be any extant proceedings. An amicus is certainly able to address the court. Our experience has been that certainly on judicial review the higher courts have extended the ambit of who can properly address the court; but that depends, alas, on getting your proceedings off the ground—and you cannot at the moment on our scheme. Therefore an amicus, however friendly, is not going to be available to assist the court.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Lord sits down, that was not, I think, what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the Human Rights Bill, when he dealt with the victim point by saying that, although he was sticking to the narrow victim test, he hoped that the courts would take a generous view of amicus representations, which would help to tackle the problem. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to look again at what was said in the—he said "years" but I think it was only days of—debate on the Human Rights Bill in that respect.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: It was days of debate and years of discussion. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has the scars of the years of discussion more than I have. The Lord Chancellor, as I recall it, was not suggesting that one could sidestep the necessity for a victim by simply having an amicus. As I understood it, what he was doing was endorsing and welcoming the fact that the courts are much more flexible and open-minded about giving—this is almost a contradiction in itself—a locus to an amicus in a particular instance.
    Lord Archer of Sandwell: The possibility of the amicus role was discussed in another place. I do not propose to embark on it tonight, but it may be something to which we would wish to return at a later stage of our deliberations.
    I confess to an element of disappointment because consistency is certainly one of the qualities which I would happily accord to my noble friend. Tonight he has been somewhat selective in the matters on which he wishes to be consistent. One inroad into his consistency has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I would have thought another matter on which his consistency was in some doubt was that the exception for law officers must be based on the fact that

    1553
    the law officers are guardians of the public interest. What on earth is the commission doing if it is not a guardian of the public interest? I would have thought that if one were really dedicated fiercely to consistency, that too might be a consideration.
    As my noble friend says, much of this ground has been traversed before. I do not promise that it will not be traversed again. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
    Clause 56 [Restrictions on application of rights]:
    [Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
    Clause 56 agreed to.
    Clause 57 agreed to.
    Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
    Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
    House resumed.
    House adjourned at ten o'clock.

  Asylum Applications: "Fast Track" Procedure
  Asylum Applications: "Fast Track" Procedure
  Mercenaries
  Mercenaries
  China: Population Policies
  China: Population Policies
  Indonesia: The Balibo Incident
  Indonesia: The Balibo Incident
  Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations
  Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations
  Environment Council: 6 October
  Environment Council: 6 October
  Transport Council: 1 October
  Transport Council: 1 October
  Basel Convention: Decision IV/9 Amendment
  Basel Convention: Decision IV/9 Amendment
  Regional Development Agencies: Guidance
  Regional Development Agencies: Guidance
  Bellwin Scheme: Financial Assistance for Flooding
  Bellwin Scheme: Financial Assistance for Flooding
  National Air Quality Strategy
  National Air Quality Strategy
  National Forest: East Midlands
  National Forest: East Midlands
  Illegally Operated Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Illegally Operated Heavy Goods Vehicles
  National Air Traffic Services Ltd.
  National Air Traffic Services Ltd.
  Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997
  Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997
  UFOs: MoD Answering Machine
  UFOs: MoD Answering Machine
  Medical Negligence Claims
  Medical Negligence Claims
  Working Group on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: Membership
  Working Group on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: Membership
  EC Aid Budget: Fraud
  EC Aid Budget: Fraud
  Scotland: EU Membership
  Scotland: EU Membership
  Income Inequality
  Income Inequality
  Euro: Redenomination of Share Capital
  Euro: Redenomination of Share Capital
  Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet
  Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet
  Budget Surplus/Deficit
  Budget Surplus/Deficit
  Government Systems: Millennium Compliance
  Government Systems: Millennium Compliance
  Fifty Pound Banknote
  Fifty Pound Banknote