Sitting of 22 October 1998

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 29 October.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 29 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Subsidised Employment (New Deal)
    Mr. John Healey: If he will make a statement on the progress of the subsidised employment option of the new deal. [55090]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): Like the rest of the new deal, that option has got off to an encouraging start. By the end of August, 7,000 young people were in jobs found through that option, in addition to the 16,000 in unsubsidised jobs.
    Mr. Healey: I welcome that response. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the use of the new deal job option in Wales to create 70 new classroom assistants, and in the NHS in Scotland to create 270 new health service jobs, and what plans does he have to encourage similar initiatives in England?
    Mr. Smith: Both those opportunities got off the ground only recently, and we are following them closely. The important thing, whether the job opportunities are in the public or the private sector, is that the processes work in terms of matching the young person with the right potential to the vacancy that meets the needs of the right employer. Whether people are in the classroom, or working in a hospital or a nursery, the important thing is that each one is the right person for the job.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: Is the Minister aware that, in the Cambridge travel-to-work area, by the end of September, only eight of the 667 persons eligible for the new deal had been placed through the subsidised employment option? Does he recognise the fact that, in some areas such as mine, it would be more relevant for resources to be directed towards, for example, those who are disabled, rather than being spent on promoting an option that is not being taken up or well used?
    Mr. Smith: It would not be surprising to find that a relatively small number of people in the hon. Gentleman's area had moved through into employment at this stage of the programme. As the programme did not start throughout the country until April, we would expect the bulk of the intake still to be in the gateway. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the importance of provision for disabled people. I remind him that the new deal for young people provides for disabled people too, and, so far, the statistics that we have released showing the progress made by disabled people have been encouraging.
    Mr. Tom Levitt: Over the summer, I took the opportunity to visit all three of the jobcentres in my constituency to see for myself how the new deal was progressing. I was impressed by what I saw. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate the staff of the Employment Service on the care, diligence and purpose that they are showing in responding to the challenge that the new deal presents?
    Mr. Smith: Indeed, I take pleasure in joining my hon. Friend in congratulating the staff of the Employment Service and the other partners who are working with us to make the new deal a success because, in order to succeed, it has to be a national crusade involving everybody in helping young and long-term unemployed people into jobs. There is no doubt that the commitment of Employment Service staff, the way in which quite a radical culture change is being driven through the service, and especially the dedication of the personal advisers, are greatly appreciated, both by young and long-term unemployed people, and by employers.
    Mr. Damian Green: The degree of complacency that the Minister displays about the new deal is genuinely alarming. He now quotes figures showing that there are 7,000 subsidised jobs that would not have been there without the new deal, but, on 24 September, he was boasting that more than 25,000 employers had signed up to the new deal. Does he agree that, according to his own figures, there must be at least 18,000 firms that have not yet found a single placement for a new deal trainee? I think that there have been more press releases about the new deal than jobs created by it. Will the Minister tell us exactly how many firms that signed up to the new deal have failed to find even one suitable trainee? That would be one important measure of the failure of the scheme.
    Mr. Smith: If there is any complacency around, it is among those on the Opposition Front Bench. Let us not forget—the Conservative party was so complacent about youth and long-term unemployment that there would have been no deal if it had had its way. That is the utmost in complacency. As to the progress of young people into

    1379
    jobs, 23,000 moving into jobs and 16,000 into unsubsidised jobs is a creditable achievement for a programme that only rolled out nationally in April. That is 23,000 more than would have been achieved under the hon. Gentleman's policies.

    Education Action Zones
    Mr. Ivor Caplin: If he will make a statement on the first 25 education action zones and on his plans for the next round of bids. [55091]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The first 12 education action zones started on 1 September and 13 more begin on 1 January. I expect to invite applications for more zones in the new year.
    Mr. Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that, during the recess, the Conservative party said that it had left us a golden education legacy? If that were the case, presumably the private sector would have been involved in partnerships in education for some years before we came to power. Clearly, that is not the case. Is not the partnership between the private and public sectors crucial to the long-term stability and economy of this country and to its education, which is why education action zones are an important way forward for education authorities?
    Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. There was no golden legacy in education—try telling the four out of 10 eleven-year-olds who were not even taught to read and write and use numbers effectively, and their parents, that there was. We shall change that. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of partnerships. One positive aspect of education action zones is the willingness with which industry, commerce and other partners have joined with schools, pupils and governors to raise standards for children. That is not just in the interests of schools—every person in this country has a vested interest in getting education right. The partnership being built in education action zones is one symbol of that.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that, if the Government adopted a less ambivalent attitude to the participation of private companies in education action zones, companies would be more positive about joining in and less scared of participating?
    Ms Morris: The hon. Lady refers to an ambivalent attitude—perhaps that is better than no attitude, which is what we had from the previous Government. I do not know what information the hon. Lady has read. BT, American Express and KPMG are partners in the action zone to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) referred. Kelloggs, American Express and Arthur Andersen are all top-rate companies which are joining with local companies to work with education action zones. People from industry are chairing education action zones and industry is represented on every single action zone forum. We are getting the partnership right, because it is not just words—there is action out there, and that partnership in action will raise standards. There is much to do because of the mess that the previous Government left us.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend for establishing an education action zone in Halifax and
    1380
    for recognising the problems that we faced. Will she join me in congratulating Anna White, her teachers, the governors, the local education authority and, most of all, the children for—in the words of Ofsted—having transformed the Ridings? I also pay tribute to the Secretary of State, who has shown such special interest in this school.
    Ms Morris: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to welcome the education action zone in Halifax, which will build on what has gone on at the Ridings. Yesterday was a good news day for education and for the Ridings school, and not only because of what has happened there and because the life chances of a generation of children in Halifax will be better as a result of the work that has been done in the past few years. Perhaps even more important than that, it was a good day because of the lesson it teaches us—that any school can be turned round with good leadership, good teaching, and strong partnership involving Government and local authorities.
    I wish to add my thanks, and the thanks of Ministers, to Anna White for the work that she has done. She deserves to be congratulated, and she will teach others to lead schools in equally good ways. I join my hon. Friend in her thanks to others, but I should also like to thank my hon. Friend, who has been assiduous in arguing on behalf of the schools in Halifax. She has driven the matter forward, and I am sure that she took some pleasure in yesterday's announcement.
    Mr. David Willetts: I begin by congratulating the Minister on her promotion. I believe that this is her first appearance in the House since she became Minister of State and I shall mention it even if her Back-Bench colleagues do not. Will she clarify what the waffle about partnership with the private sector means? Does she agree that, both in education action zones and councils such as Surrey or Hackney, it is acceptable for private firms to make a profit from contracts to run state schools if it is in the interests of pupils? If she gives a clear yes, she can be assured of Opposition support, but we need a clear answer to a simple question. Can private companies make money from running state schools, yes or no?
    Ms Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, but he somewhat spoilt it after that. He may call it waffle, but when some of the nation's top companies go into schools, mentor children, offer learning opportunities and put in business expertise and resources, I would call it not waffle but giving our children better opportunities to achieve at a higher level. We are in favour of partnership. Schools and local authorities have always bought services from the private sector and some of those have included management consultancy. That is happening in one school in Hackney and it is being considered in Guildford—the authorities there will come to us when they have worked out their plans. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that buying services in the private sector does not amount to schools going private; it is not a change in the status of the schools. I very much regret that his present attitude to industry seems to be to question constantly and to undermine its efforts to enter partnerships with schools. He should put first not political point scoring but the interests of schools and children
    Yvette Cooper: Will my hon. Friend consider broadening the focus of future

    1381
    education action zones? In Castleford, the number of children getting five or more A to C GCSEs is 14 per cent. below the national average and the number staying on beyond 16 is a massive 40 per cent. below. Will she consider bids from places such as Castleford which concentrate on staying-on rates as well as raising standards?
    Ms Morris: I apologise profusely to my hon. Friend for that. She is right and we shall certainly consider education action zones that decide on that as one of their targets. Continuing in education has never been as important for any generation as it is for this one, whether it be for academic or vocational courses. If children do not continue in education, they will miss out on the opportunities at the end of this century and the start of the next. I would very much welcome it if the area to which she referred and others made that one of their targets.

    University for Industry
    Mr. Phil Willis: When he expects the university for industry to be launched; what its projected budget is for each of the next three years; from where those funds will be provided; and if he will make a statement. [55092]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): The university for industry will be launched in 2000. The Government have committed £15 million for start-up costs and £40 million for the financial year 1999–2000. Future years funding will be announced in due course. Other moneys are being expended through pilot schemes under the European social fund Adapt programme.
    Mr. Willis: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. Our paths have been crossing for the past 20 years and it is perhaps appropriate that his first question this Question Time should be from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who educated both his sons. May I say how pleased we are that we at last have some information about the university for industry and a launch date? Will the money that the Minister has announced—about £40 million plus £6.25 million, which is for Learning Direct—come out of the higher education budget? If that is so, does it not mean that, by 2000, it will represent a 16.5 per cent. cut in the money announced in the comprehensive spending review?
    Mr. Mudie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. My first question could not have come from a nicer person, although I might change my mind when I see who is to ask the second.
    The university for industry prospectus was issued in March and should be available in the Library—if hon. Members want a copy, I shall certainly provide them with one. The money for the university is not from the higher education budget, but from a separate budget, which was negotiated under the comprehensive spending review. The £6.5 million for the direct line is additional to the £40 million.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Did my hon. Friend read in the Financial Times this week that
    "UK banks and building societies are on the verge of forming a national network of cash machines for the first time"?
    Will he open negotiations with the banks and the lottery, which is also a national grid of sorts, as the downtime between midnight and 6 am when bank cash desks and the lottery are not used provides an opportunity to deliver the
    university for industry on a different system?
    Mr. Mudie: Although I am not directly responsible for the national grid for learning, I am aware that my hon. Friend is alive to technological complexities and interchangeability. His point will be taken on board.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The Opposition would welcome the establishment as quickly as possible of the university for industry, which I hope will be a university for life and continuing learning, but would not it be more sensible to put into the scheme a large lump of the money that is being wasted on the new deal? Is the Minister aware that the number of people who came out of long-term unemployment in the most recent quarter is lower than the number of people who did so a year ago? He could pay for continuing learning by cutting some of the waste.
    Mr. Mudie: The House will be pleased to see the conversion of Conservative Members to the new deal—for a year or so, we have been wondering why they were opposed to it. The university for industry has to date received £55 million, and further moneys are—depending on the corporate plan—to come, including £76 million from ESF Adapt programme for development, which is a considerable amount. The new deal has brought care, sympathy and action to our poorer communities—
    Mr. Bruce: It is not working.
    Mr. Mudie: It may not be working as well as Conservative Members want, but they did nothing in government—at least we have introduced the new deal.

    School Transport
    Dr. George Turner: What representations he has received on arrangements governing travel from home to school following publication of the Government's White Paper on the future of transport. [55093]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): We have received more than 100 letters from members of the public as a result of the White Paper, and we welcome people's views on how its aims can be put into practice. On 13 October, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and I hosted the first meeting of the school travel advisory group, which was attended by a wide variety of interested organisations. The group will be making recommendations.
    Dr. Turner: As a fellow Norfolk Member of Parliament, I am particularly pleased to give my

    1383
    hon. Friend a warm welcome to his new role at the Dispatch Box. Will he acknowledge the many problems, especially in rural counties such as Norfolk, that arise from school transport? As a new member of the ministerial team, will he take a fresh look at some old issues?
    Mr. Clarke rose—
    Dr. Turner: In doing so, will he consider the clear need for integration between the variety of methods of transport? For example, safe walking and safe cycling need to be examined with bussing to school. Moreover, will he use the Government initiative on raising standards—action zones—as a way forward in experimentation and innovation, so that new partnerships can produce better solutions for the next millennium?
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend. I am always a little too quick out of the traps. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaigning on this issue. He is right to say that, in Norfolk and rural counties throughout the country, this is a major issue. A total of £380 million a year is spent by local education authorities on school transport. We are prepared to look afresh at those issues. That is why we had the meeting on 13 October to which I referred. It was a joint meeting between the Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, of Health and for Education and Employment. We believe that the publication of the Government's White Paper on integrated transport strategy gives us a basis for addressing those issues in a proper way. In that context, we are prepared to look at experimental schemes to investigate ways in which we might approach the issue in particular localities.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: From Her Majesty's Opposition Benches, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as a junior Minister. I have seen him around Parliament for many years, although only latterly as a Member. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is unjust that, although free school transport is available, not all pupils in secondary education are entitled to it as of right? I am referring particularly to the decision of some local education authorities—I am thinking about one that is Labour controlled—not to allow sixth-formers in secondary schools in my constituency and throughout the county of Cheshire to take advantage of free school transport. Will the Minister look at that? Does he not think that the situation is unfair?
    Mr. Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those words of congratulation. I do not think that the situation is unfair, but I acknowledge that the current legislative framework, which was established in 1944 and which has not been amended substantially since then, is very much out of time. That is why we need to look at all the issues across the whole range in the context of an integrated transport strategy. The group I mentioned earlier is looking at each of the issues carefully and will take account of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. It is extremely important to emphasise that the way to solve this problem is through integrated transport strategies of the type that the Government are pioneering and that we hope will deliver results in the future.

    LEAs (Capital Projects)
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What additional funding in constant value terms is now available to local education authorities for capital projects in 1998–99. [55094]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): In 1998–99, an additional £347 million has been made available to local education authorities for capital projects. That is over and above previous plans. Some £257 million has been made available through the new deal for schools programme; the remaining £90 million was announced by the Chancellor in his November 1997 Budget to reduce infant class sizes, eliminate the need for outside toilets and improve energy efficiency in schools.
    Mr. Pike: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to achieving good school premises and to spending on them the money that is necessary after 18 years of neglect and financial starvation for local education authorities and schools? Will she confirm that the Government recognise in the comprehensive spending review and the doubling of money available over the next five years that the condition of school premises plays a vital part in the education of our children?
    Ms Morris: I am delighted to do that. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in campaigning for capital resources for schools in his constituency. He will be delighted that his local authority has received £4 million in new deal for schools money—£2 million more than in the last full year of the Tory Government. Our children have a right to be educated in schools that are decent and fit for learning and our teachers have a right to work in that sort of environment. We started from an incredibly low base given the disastrous approach of the previous Government to the quality of our school buildings. However, we have begun to turn that around and we shall continue to do so in the rest of this Parliament.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: A school in my constituency may benefit from private capital being invested to improve its facilities if the Minister's previous answer were to be clarified. Does the Minister welcome the involvement of private sector firms, which may make a profit, in managing schools that need to be turned around? Does she agree that it would be discriminatory and unfounded to disallow such profit-making organisations from playing a part in improving standards in our schools? Does she agree that to deny them the right to play such a part would mean denying the schools the opportunity to make use of a range of talents and resources that they may need to help them?
    Ms Morris: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to thank me for the extra £2 million NDS funding that his local authority has received. Like the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), he preferred to try to score political points instead of considering the needs of children. If Surrey proposes plans to the Department, we shall consider them, as we have said that we shall, and as we have an obligation to do. I must say that, if the hon. Gentleman and his political colleagues in Surrey had paid half as much attention and given half as much passion to stopping their schools failing, we should not be in this position.

    Common Funding Methodology
    Mr. David Chaytor: What plans he has to establish a common funding methodology for 16 to 19-year-old students. [55095]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): None, but we are alive to the concerns of the issue and will watch closely the effects of three factors: first, the use that local education authorities make of the greater freedoms provided by the fair funding regulations; secondly, the effect of the extra money—£100 million this year and £255 million next year—that we have put into the further education sector; and, thirdly, how well and quickly the collaborative protocol agreed between the further education sector, the LEAs and the TEC National Council has an effect.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and add my congratulations on his appointment to the Front Bench. Will he meet representatives of the college sector to discuss the issue further? When will the latest version of the funding costs comparison report be published?
    Mr. Mudie: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the ten-minute Bill that he introduced yesterday on the subject. The document will be published as soon as possible and certainly this year. I am happy to meet him and any of his colleagues on any occasion to discuss the matter.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Minister with responsibility for lifelong learning accept congratulations from the Opposition on his appointment to an important position? Does he accept that the funding problem is by no means new and that successive Ministers, including myself, have wrestled with it and tried to mitigate the consequences? In the real world, the problems are caused not so much by the different funding streams or the fact that further education has traditionally been funded at the margin and schools have been funded on an average cost basis, but by the danger of destabilising sixth-form provision. Will the Minister neverless accept that we welcome the attempts to bring the various parties together? Anything that he can do to reduce the problems will be welcome.
    Mr. Mudie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. The funding problem is difficult and we all wrestle with it. I do not wish to be political, but the problem was made worse by the era of competition between the sectors that was introduced by the previous Government and by the cuts that the further education sector experienced. Now that we have increased the money for further education, we might have a better atmosphere in which to work towards a solution.

    Literacy Summer Schools
    7. Helen Jones: What assessment he has made of the value of the 1998 literacy summer schools; and if he will make a statement.[55096]
    12. Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on the initial results of the literacy summer schools. [55102]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): This year's summer schools are being evaluated by the National Foundation for Educational Research. The report will be received in November and I will place copies in the Library. A sample evaluation of 200 of this year's summer schools has shown substantial results. The summer schools were over-subscribed and many children could not get places. Half those evaluated showed an improvement in their reading of six months or more and that is a tremendous achievement for those summer schools and a tremendous fillip for the education of those children.
    Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. As he knows, I had three summer schools in my constituency and I was impressed by the work that was done in them. Does he agree that they would not have been so successful but for the dedication and enthusiasm of the staff, both teaching and non-teaching? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate them on the time and effort that they put in, which has raised reading standards substantially for many children?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am delighted to commend the teaching and non-teaching staff and the parents who committed time to the summer schools. I can confirm that following the success of 557 literacy schools and 51 numeracy schools this year, we intend to double the number of summer schools next year. At least 1,200 will provide a link between primary and secondary schooling and an opportunity to show to anyone who doubts it the commitment of staff, parents and the community to raising standards in education.
    Mr. Rammell: May I tell the Secretary of State about my experience of visiting the summer literacy schools in my constituency? The commitment and enthusiasm of the young people were heart warming. May I tell him too about my discussions with teachers about the Government's overall approach—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time.
    Mr. Rammell: I am getting to it, Madam Speaker. We are setting targets and using the literacy hour and summer schools to improve standards. Is not that the fundamental difference between what we are doing and the attitude of the previous Government, who, far too often, simply accepted educational under-performance as a fact of life?
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. It is a credit to the schools of Harlow that five of the eight summer schools in Essex were held in that town. I commend to the House what my hon. Friend has said. It is important to keep reiterating that there were no summer schools when we took office. The Government are making a difference by

    1387
    action rather than words and by investing where the Conservative Government merely wrung their hands. Take the example of the Ridings school, and the way in which it has been led by Anna White. I saw that school's improvement, and I was able to announce to parents and teachers that there would be a summer school when I was the first Minister ever to visit the school. The Ridings proves that if a commitment is made and resources are available, we can succeed.
    Mrs. Theresa May: We are talking about the Government's targets for improving literacy skills. Is not the reality that the Government have been blown off course in meeting their targets for literacy and numeracy? The Secretary of State talks of action, not words, but this summer's results failed to meet up to the Government's words. Figures for key stage 2 results published earlier this month show that the Government have been blown off course on literacy because progress is not good enough to hit their targets. Furthermore, numeracy results show a fall rather than an improvement. The Government simply are not going to hit their targets. The Secretary of State is reported as saying that if the Government did not hit their targets, he would resign. Will he confirm that?
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall give myself a chance to do the job before I consider resigning. It may have escaped the hon. Lady's notice that the policies carried through in the first year of the Labour Government reflected the total failure of the previous Government to tackle literacy and numeracy. They failed even to put in place a basic curriculum for teacher training in literacy and numeracy. They failed to put in place a literacy and numeracy strategy. We put a framework in place, which started in September. When our numeracy strategy is in place next year, we shall transform the abysmal results that are the miserable legacy that we inherited from the Conservatives into a triumph. Instead of six out of 10 children being able to read and write, eight out of 10—and eventually 10 out of 10—will be able to do so when they leave primary school.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Literacy summer schools must be seen in conjunction with the literacy hour in primary schools. Primaries in my constituency are very positive about that, and the kids enjoy it. The teachers are keen to feed back ideas about the literacy hour to strengthen the project in the light of their experiences. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that a clear and manageable mechanism exists to allow schools to feed their experience to his Department?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, we are keen to do that. That is why the immediate survey of 200 has taken place and why the evaluation of the national foundation is taking place. We must learn what works best and, obviously, set aside those things that are not working. I should like to take this opportunity to say that when I visited one of the earlier numeracy schools in August, I found imaginative work, inspiring children to want to learn. I should like to see that transferred into the main curriculum programmes, so that children rejoice in learning, not just in the summer but throughout the whole of their school life.

    EU Awareness
    Mr. Howard Flight: What steps are being
    taken to promote awareness of the EU in schools. [55097]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): Awareness of the European Union in schools is promoted mainly through the study requirements for geography, history and modern languages laid down in the national curriculum.
    Mr. Flight: The Minister will be aware that at the end of last year and the beginning of this year the Minister of State in the other place circulated a large pack to heads of all schools about the EU. I had letters from more than one head in my constituency complaining about this because, on looking through it, in fairness it was propaganda in favour of the euro and of the concept of a European state. In the light of the Neill report comments in particular, will the Minister undertake that the Government are careful that information only, not propaganda, is circulated?
    Mr. Smith: We certainly need information and not propaganda, but I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman's definition of which is which. Surely it is sensible that young people whose future and economic prosperity turn to a large extent on our links with European partners should know something about the EU and be properly equipped critically to discuss it. Of course we want balanced teaching on this as on other issues. I am confident that this can and should be left to the good sense of head teachers and classroom teachers acting under their statutory requirements.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many schools have improved their knowledge of the EU by establishing a connection with schools in Europe through using the world wide web and electronic mail? Does he consider that that is a useful way of acquiring information? Will he think about incorporating such collaborations within the national grid for learning?
    Mr. Smith: I am sure that contact, whether through the internet or school exchanges, which are such a well-established feature of school life, has an enormous amount to contribute. I shall, indeed, pursue my hon. Friend's suggestion. Our young people deserve the opportunity to have accurate balanced information, as I was saying earlier, and to meet and exchange ideas with other young people, whether elsewhere in the European Union or in the world, and the internet provides that great opportunity.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Can the Minister confirm that the glossy children's comic produced by the European Commission and ludicrously entitled "The Raspberry Ice Cream War" has been pulped? In his reply, will he tell the House exactly what his consideration was in taking the decision to pulp that comic and how much it has cost the public purse to produce it?
    Mr. Smith: As far as I am aware the comic has not been pulped, but is piled up in a warehouse somewhere

    1389
    in Oxfordshire. It undoubtedly was an ill-judged and, in part, factually inaccurate publication. The EU Commission representative here, Mr. Geoffrey Martin, sensibly decided that it was inappropriate to distribute it. What happens to it is for the Commission to decide. The Commission might want to donate it to Oxfordshire's recycling effort or simply send it back to Brussels.

    Truancy
    Mr. Chris Pond: What evidence he has evaluated on links between truancy and unregulated term-time employment by children of school age. [55098]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has lead responsibility on employment of schoolchildren. A review of child employment law is currently being undertaken by officials from his Department, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Cabinet Office and the Health and Safety Executive. Children may not, of course, be employed to work during school hours.
    Mr. Pond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that Gravesham secondary school heads have written to local supermarkets asking why students preparing for GCSEs and A-levels have been required to work 20 hours a week, and no less, or have no job at all, and that other students work overnight in residential care homes? Given that 4 per cent. of children of school age admit to truanting on some occasions in order to undertake paid employment, does my right hon. Friend agree that dealing with truancy and excessive hours of employment for children of school age should be at the heart of our crusade to improve standards in education?
    Mr. Smith: The circumstances that my hon. Friend reports concern me. I will draw them immediately to the attention of local education authorities, so that education welfare officers can look into them. I shall also draw them to the attention of the review to which I referred earlier. The causes of truancy and the things that people do when they are truanting cover much more than employment. There is limited evidence that employment is a major factor in truancy, but where young people are working excessive hours or in dangerous or unsuitable conditions, that has to be stopped. We will ensure that action is taken.
    Mr. John Bercow: While I acknowledge that the employment of schoolchildren must be strictly regulated by law, I hope that the Minister agrees that such regulation should not prevent them from undertaking safe work that boosts their finances and those of their families. When the Government decided to prohibit the use of children on milk rounds at the request of the National Child Employment Network, did civil servants or the network bother to ask any children or their parents what benefit they gained and how they might suffer in the absence of those rounds?
    Mr. Smith: The important thing here is that some common sense is brought to bear. We recognise the benefits that young people derive from a proper amount
    1390
    of suitable work experience. There is not the evidence to show that sensible and appropriate work damages their educational accomplishment. I will certainly ensure that the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is considered. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the Government are doing far more than our predecessors did to ensure that suitable preparation for work and sensible work experience forms part of the school experience for young people who can benefit from the opportunity to work.

    New Deal
    Dr. Desmond Turner: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal in (a) pathfinder areas and (b) the rest of the country. [55100]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I am pleased with the early progress of the new deal. Already we have seen more than 145,000 young people invited to start on new deal; 32,000 of them are in the pathfinder areas; 23,000 have moved into jobs and 9,000 have moved into other options.
    Dr. Turner: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment to the Front Bench. I am sure that she is already aware that in my constituency and in the rest of Brighton we have a considerable problem of homelessness. Many of the homeless are young people who have been failed by the education system and have a bleak future in employment because, from a position of homelessness, access to employment is doubly difficult. Will my hon. Friend tell the House the ways in which the new deal will help such people?
    Ms Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I am aware of the problems that are faced by some young people in linking homelessness to joblessness. In Brighton it is a particular problem. We have funded a mediation project under the new deal as part of the gateway scheme so that we can provide counselling to young people who are homeless and put them into a secure environment. There are a number of projects around the country that link homelessness to joblessness. That is an integral part of a unique scheme under the new deal. The scheme is not about managing unemployment figures but about creating real and lasting opportunities for the young people of Britain today.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Having had the pleasure of working with the hon. Lady on the Select Committee on Education, I, too, congratulate her on her appointment to the Front Bench. From that Committee's deliberations, she, like me, will be familiar with the provenance of the new deal, its having been introduced at a time when unemployment was falling sharply under the previous Government's policies. Now that the economic circumstances are somewhat different and growth forecasts have been revised sharply downwards, what plans do she and her colleagues have to revise the implementation of the new deal, in particular to take account of job losses in manufacturing in the north and the midlands?
    Ms Hodge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. Despite his remarks, nearly 400,000 new jobs have

    1391
    been created since the current Government took office. Furthermore, since the general election, youth unemployment has fallen by 15 per cent. and is about 13 per cent. less than it was in early 1979, when the Conservative Government first took office. The new deal's record of success speaks for itself.
    Caroline Flint: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment to the Front Bench. From my experience of working with her on the Select Committee and, previously, on the numerous child care projects with which she has been involved, I know that those working in the world of child care will welcome her appointment as much as I do.
    May I bring to my hon. Friend's attention, and ask her to congratulate with me, Angela Ashman, who is 24 and is the 100th young person to go to Doncaster college under the Government's new deal? Five years ago, Angela began her training in hairdressing and, having stopped to begin her family, she is now taking a national vocational qualification in hairdressing. I quote her comments, printed in the Doncaster star:
    "Without New Deal there's no way I could have got back into training as I just couldn't afford the child care, but now that's been paid for it's great to be back at college."
    Does my hon. Friend the Minister share my view that child care combined with education is the best way in which we can help young mothers, rather than telling them,
    "Get thee to a nunnery"?
    Ms Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. As she spoke, I was reminded of the occasion on which we visited a further education college together and looked in on a course in hairdressing. There were seven lone parents present, all of whom were returning to work through education and the facilities for child care that had been created. It is a vital part of the new deal, both generally and for lone parents, that we make affordable, accessible and high-quality child care available to those women who need it if they are to gain access to the labour market.
    Mr. David Willetts: I, too, welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. I thought that we were not going to hear from her this afternoon, but she has been allowed out on the new deal.
    The Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) was remarkably complacent—as complacent as the answer we heard yesterday from the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The fact is that, throughout the summer, we have heard worrying announcements of factory closures and job losses; meanwhile, the Minister's Department is closing job clubs and putting all its effort into the new deal, which is a monumental irrelevance. It does absolutely nothing to help the people who are currently losing their jobs thanks to the Government's economic policies. Why will the Government not treat all unemployed people fairly and shift some resources towards the people who are losing jobs because of the Government's policies?
    Ms Hodge: I do hate to blur with simple facts the rather boring and tedious political rhetoric that we are hearing
    1392
    from Conservative Members. The simple facts are that, under our new deal, at this very early stage, more than 23,000 young people who would otherwise have been unemployed are now in work. We are extending that new deal to those who are long-term unemployed—those who have been unemployed for two years. From November, we are piloting the new deal for those who have been unemployed for between 12 and 18 months. That is the proper way to tackle unemployment—with a scheme that is not about massaging unemployment figures, but about creating real opportunities with the gateway and ensuring that we improve employability so that people can go into real jobs.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: On behalf of my colleagues, I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on her promotion. I welcome the fact that the Government have allocated £140 million to Northern Ireland over the next five years for the new deal. Will the hon. Lady join me in urging those who have been disadvantaged to increase their qualifications and upgrade their skills so that they can benefit from the new employment opportunities being created in Northern Ireland?
    Ms Hodge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and support for the innovative and important new deal introduced by the Government. This is the first time that we have tried to link job opportunities and schemes to training and employment. We know that good skills, education and qualifications matter for the wealth of Britain, so the new deal is a vital scheme which should be supported across the House.

    Social Exclusion Unit
    Ms Dari Taylor: If he will make a statement on the latest report from the social exclusion unit and on what steps he has taken to tackle the problems faced by disaffected young people. [55101]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I welcome the social exclusion unit's report, "Bringing Britain Together: A Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal", which is linked to the earlier report on truancy and exclusion. We are setting a target for a reduction of one third in truancy and exclusion over the next three years. During that time we shall invest £493 million to tackle head on the tragedy of exclusion and truancy. We shall use a cross-departmental approach to overcome disadvantages in our most deprived neighbourhoods and we shall invest the resources that the Conservative party denied for so many years.
    Ms Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to be successful in including young people, local partnerships and local authorities must be involved in all policies? Does he agree also that successfully helping young people will be the test of our policy of including the excluded? Are local authorities to be given further advice on funding sixth form education?
    Mr. Blunkett: On the first two questions, it is absolutely clear that without a partnership approach that

    1393
    includes every agency and contributor, we cannot succeed. That is why the schools plus team, which was set up following the renewal report, and our advice on best practice in avoiding exclusion and truancy must combine to spread the excellence that already exists. In addition, the new start programme will target 14 to 19-year-olds.
    It is clear that children who are excluded and who truant from school are excluded from life. They cannot get a job; they often find themselves in difficulty with the law, and they find themselves alienated from society. A comprehensive approach to post-16 education by further education and sixth form colleges, which provides work-based training and work in the community, is vital in ensuring that everyone is pulling in the same direction.
    Mr. Don Foster: I congratulate the new members of the Front-Bench team and welcome many of the Secretary of State's proposals for tackling the disaffected. Does he accept that disaffected young people are often those who achieve the least academically? Will he therefore explain to the House why, if targets are so important to him, there are no targets in literacy for the bottom 20 per cent. of pupils, which means that teachers tend to concentrate on the rest? Will not that lead to
    1394
    further disaffection? Is there not already a growing gap between the bottom 20 per cent. of pupils and the rest, which is a recipe for disaster?
    Mr. Blunkett: In view of the congratulations coming from all sides to half of my team, I think that I should congratulate them myself.
    We have a difficulty in that every time we set new targets, the Liberal Democrats say that we are overloading teachers and causing them aggravation. I shall be delighted to set targets in the not too distant future to avoid having children leaving school with no qualifications. Last year 45,000 young people left school without a single qualification to their name. Regrettably, the vast majority of children in care leave school without qualifications. We shall do something about that. However, a solution will be achieved not simply by setting a target but by putting in place the necessary support mechanisms to ensure that all children are well educated.
    Recent GCSE results show an improvement in terms of those gaining an A to G qualification or the equivalent, and a decrease in the number of pupils who leave school with no qualifications. I think that we should take some pride in those results and spread best practice so that we can do even better next year.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 OCTOBER—Opposition Day
Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on the Economy followed by a debate on Agriculture and the Food Industry. Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
TUESDAY 27 OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
Motion relating to the Working Time Regulations
WEDNESDAY 28 OCTOBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 29 OCTOBER—Debate on Quarantine for Pets on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 30 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.
MONDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Debate on the Security and Intelligence Agencies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 4 November there will be a debate on the Social Action Programme 1998–2000 in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 4 November:
European Standing Committee B:—Relevant European Community Document: 8328/98, Social Action Programme; Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xxx (1997–98].
It may be convenient for the House if I announce now that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday 24 November.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. Lady for providing the business for the first week. I understand the current uncertainties, but I hope that she plans to revert to announcing two weeks' business in advance so that hon. Members may plan ahead.
Is it not astonishing that, although there is minimal pressure on parliamentary time, the Government have not found time for a full day's debate on the economy? While we may disagree about the reasons for the economic downturn confronting us, the recession concerns our constituents and is the subject of intense debate in the newspapers. It should be debated in the House, and the Government should not rely on Opposition days for debating that key subject. Is that not further evidence of the Government's intention to sideline and marginalise this Chamber?
1396
After Parliament rose for the recess, we saw the publication of the Neill committee's report on the funding of political parties. It is a radical report with wide implications for the political process, and there are rumours that the Government plan to cherry-pick it. Can the right hon. Lady find time to debate the Neill committee report in the overspill? We are expecting the publication next week of the Jenkins report commissioned by the Government. On what day next week does the right hon. Lady expect its publication? Will the Government make a statement about that report? The House will expect an early debate on the report and the Government's response to it.
We are grateful to the right hon. Lady for announcing the date of the state opening of Parliament. Can she confirm when she plans to prorogue the House? In view of the shifting foreign affairs situation in Kosovo and elsewhere, is there any prospect of a debate on foreign affairs?
Finally, the right hon. Lady may know that an important international conference will be held in Buenos Aires from 2 to 12 November following up the Kyoto summit. It would be helpful if the Government could hold a debate before the conference starts so that hon. Members may give the Government the benefit of their views on those issues.
Mrs. Beckett: I shall endeavour to cover all the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. On the economy, the House will be very well aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that he will be making his pre-Budget statement on 3 November. The House will also be well aware that this is when the Government set out in full, with all the latest information, their current view of the economy. In that sense, it is faintly ludicrous to accuse the Government of not being prepared to come to the House and focus on those issues.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the Neill and Jenkins reports. I would normally hope to adopt an attitude of sweet reason in our weekly exchanges, but I find it extraordinary that the Opposition are already trying to make something of the Neill report and accusing the Government of trying to cherry-pick it. As the Conservatives are supposed to have given undertakings to implement some of the recommendations on publishing political party accounts and have singularly failed to do so, I do not think that it lies with them to accuse anyone of cherry-picking the Neill report. It is an extensive report. We were pleased that many of its recommendations chime in with our own evidence, but it goes far wider—
Sir George Young: Not all.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Not all". As far as I can recall, the report does not chime in with any of the recommendations made by the Opposition. Indeed, they refused point blank to allow Neill even to consider party political funding, so it seems quite farcical for them to pretend that they have the high ground on this matter. Of course we have every intention that there should be proper debate and consideration of the Neill report. When we have had a better chance to consider its wide range of recommendations and proposals, no doubt the matter will return in some form.

1397
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me when I expected the Jenkins report. I am afraid that is not immediately fresh in my mind. It may be Thursday next week, but I cannot be absolutely categorical. Again, we do not yet have the report, but of course I recognise that it is a matter in which there is passionate interest on both sides of the House and I am confident that it will come before the House at some stage.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me when the House may prorogue. I cannot give him a date, but I anticipate that it is likely to be late in the week preceding the state opening. I have taken note of his request for a debate on matters raised in the aftermath of Kyoto and of the dates that he gave for the conference in Buenos Aires. He also asked me about the prospect of a discussion on Kosovo. He will be aware, I am sure, that Foreign and Commonwealth questions are top next Tuesday.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the House be kept informed of developments over the Pinochet case? Is it not important that the due processes of law apply to all criminals, including a former murderous, criminal dictator and torturer such as Pinochet? Would it not have been far better had Lady Thatcher realised that and kept her mouth shut?
Mrs. Beckett: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that we should recognise the key importance of due processes of law with regard to all. He has asked for an assurance that the House will be kept informed. Knowing his considerable experience in commenting on such matters, I am confident that he will be well aware of the quasi-judicial role occupied by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Obviously, I will bear in mind his request, consistent with that responsibility.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I endorse the request for debates, when time can be found, on the Neill and Jenkins reports as well as Kosovo? There is a general feeling in the House that simply answering questions is not a sufficient response to that problem.
Will the Leader of the House undertake an urgent investigation and report back to the House as soon as possible on the terms of reference and the criteria for editing the parliamentary channel? I do not know whether she is aware that the BBC has now taken responsibility for the channel. I am given to understand, and I now have some evidence, that that has put the BBC in a rather invidious position. She may be aware that yesterday, I initiated a debate in the House on the reporting of Parliament by the BBC, which is a matter of considerable concern, and I was told afterwards by an hon. Gentleman that the BBC, in its strapline that runs across the bottom of the picture, was interpolating its own comments on our debate. This is a particularly invidious situation. I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that it is worth looking at the terms of reference of the BBC when it undertakes the reporting of Parliament on our behalf.
This afternoon, I viewed the tape of that debate. My speeches and those of other hon. Members appear with the BBC's own comments on the debate across the bottom of the picture. This may be a special case, but I think the Leader of the House will agree that in such circumstances, it could be invidious for the BBC to comment in that way, and possibly extremely misleading.
Mrs. Beckett: The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises was not familiar to me. I am sure that many hon. Members
1398
will share his concern. I take his point that he would wish the House to consider the matter at some stage, and I shall bear that in mind.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: After all the statements have been made about General Pinochet, and if all else fails, may I offer a decent suggestion? The official solicitor should gently take him by the hand to Mrs. Thatcher's flat, and force him to live there for the next six months.
Hon. Members: Cruel and unusual punishment.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot possibly comment.
Mr. Peter Brooke: As I have read that the Government are in favour of the main thrust of the Neill report, which contained 100 recommendations, can the Leader of the House tell us how many recommendations fall under what I assume is the lesser thrust?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I did not follow the end of the right hon. Gentleman's question, but I can tell him, as I said a few moments ago, that the Neill report is more wide-ranging than any of us had anticipated, and the Government will want to—
Mr. Andrew MacKay: We have accepted all the recommendations.
Mrs. Beckett: In that case, I look forward with eager anticipation to the publication of the Conservative party' s accounts.
Mr. Stuart Bell: May I build on the response that the President of the Council gave to the shadow Leader of the House, and tell my right hon. Friend and the House that the Jenkins report will be published on Thursday morning with a press conference at the Institute
of Directors, which seems entirely appropriate? In the light of my right hon. Friend's comments on sweet reasonableness, may I ask her to ask the Prime Minister to come to the House on Thursday afternoon and give us a statement on the Jenkins commission's report and recommendations, and to follow that with an early debate, given the report's constitutional implications and importance for the House?
Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the passionate interest that my hon. Friend, along with many other hon. Members, takes in the matter. I am confident that when the Jenkins report has been published, time will be found to air the issues that it raises, but I am not keen to speculate on when.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Government of Libya have now accepted in writing the arrangements for a trial in The Hague of the Lockerbie suspects, subject to three amendments, and as the British and American Governments have said that there can be no amendments, is it not rather insulting to the House of Commons that the order providing for the trial and the expenditure, No. 2251, is not subject to debate or consideration by the House or any Committee? Would it not be fairer to democracy and to the relatives of those

1399
who lost their lives if the Government would arrange a debate for next week, to allow the House to say whether it approves of the Government's tough line, or whether it thinks that there was some merit in making concessions on the three amendments proposed by the Libyan Government?
Mrs. Beckett: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says in requesting time to be found to raise the matter in the House. He will be aware that it is Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday, when he will no doubt look for an opportunity to raise the matter.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As I am sure the Leader of the House knows, the Department of Social Security today announced the outcome of the annual review of the cold weather payments scheme. The problem still exists of postal areas being covered by different meteorological offices. In my constituency I have a massive problem with two postcode areas that are dealt with from Leeds, rather than from Nottinghamshire. The question of sorting out which meteorological offices should be used is one that should be aired in the House, bearing in mind that we shall all be receiving massive representations from our constituents.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that warning. He may be right to say that we shall receive heavy correspondence on the matter and that the issue will be raised in the House. I am aware that the way in which these matters are settled has long been an issue of controversy. The tabling of Social Security questions will be on Monday 2 November. That will give hon. Members an opportunity to try to raise the issue. It remains the position that as a result of the early actions that the Government took on coming into office, all pensioners receive help with their heating bills in a way that was not previously the case. That at least marginally alleviates the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I reinforce the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for a debate on foreign affairs? Would not such a debate be particularly apposite before the visit next week of President Menem of Argentina—a visit whose purpose is to effect a full reconciliation between our two countries—in that it would give an opportunity for the Government to explain their policies towards countries that have had civil strife, such as Argentina, where more people died than in Chile? Could not the occasion be used also to remind the House how General Secretary Honecker of East Germany, whose regime was responsible for the deaths of scores of people on the Berlin wall, was received in Chile to pass his declining years with his daughter—with his family? Could not appropriate conclusions be drawn?
Mrs. Beckett: I hear the hon. Gentleman's support for a debate on foreign affairs. We had a statement on foreign affairs on Monday of this week and there will be Foreign Office questions next week. I fear that I do not see time for a foreign affairs debate in the near future.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate on early-day motion 1677?
[That this House is gravely concerned at evidence of the over prescription of damaging and addictive medicinal drugs in women's prisons; believes that powerful medicinal drugs prescribed to the late Emma Humphries and one other woman may have caused their premature deaths; is alarmed by the claims made by a distinguished author that neuroleptic drugs are routinely prescribed to young women prisoners who mutilate themselves, and that medicinal drugs are used as pacifiers which move prisoners from non-addictive illegal drug use to highly addictive medicinal drug use; and calls for a full inquiry into all drug use in women's prisons.]
The motion deals with the serious and tragic case of two young women who died at a very early age from, according to the families' belief, addictions to medicinal drugs that they acquired in prison. The claim is being made that there is vast over-prescription of Largactil and other neuroleptics in our prisons, and that Largactil is being used as a pacifier and as a means to enable prison officers to meet their performance targets by weaning prisoners, especially women prisoners, off non-addictive, illegal drugs on to highly addictive and dangerous legal drugs. The case has been made eloquently in a recent book by Angela Devlin entitled "Invisible Women".
The Home Office of this Government and that of the previous Government have refused to give details of prescribing neuroleptics in women's prisons. Is it not right that we should have a debate to ensure that the plight of these defenceless women is made visible?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in these matters and of his concern about issues such as the welfare of prisoners. I can only say to him that there will be Home Office questions this coming Monday, which may provide an opportunity to raise the matter to which he has referred. I cannot promise him time for a debate in the very near future.
Mr. Eric Forth: Does the Leader of the House accept that she has perhaps inadvertently given the best possible reason for an urgent debate on the Neill report? The Leader has wriggled obviously about the Government's response to the report, which they set up with much posturing and wringing of hands, allegedly taking the moral high ground. How is it that the right hon. Lady finds it so difficult, even at this stage, to say, "We don't need a debate on the report because we, the Government, accept every proposed measure in it", as the Opposition have done?
Surely we need an opportunity for the Leader of the House and others on the Government Benches to explain why they are so embarrassed about the Neill report and why they will not accept some of the key recommendations, not least those on referendums, which the Government are obviously hell bent on using as a twisted device to massage public opinion for their own needs.
Mrs. Beckett: I have seldom heard such claptrap at any Question Time or debate. Labour asked the Neill committee to report on these matters against the opposition of the Conservative party. We have implemented all the things that we could voluntarily

1401
implement and that were in our evidence to the committee already. The Conservative party claims to accept all the recommendations, but has not lifted a finger to implement any of them. As there are wide recommendations on referendums that require careful consideration, it is sensible for the Government to weigh these matters and then come to the House with their response. As for the notion that the Conservatives have attained the moral high ground by saying that they accept in full all the recommendations, the fact that they have not implemented any of the ones that they could have implemented shows that they would not know the moral high ground if they saw it.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Has my right hon. Friend seen the words attributed to the Prime Minister this week on the European Union and defence? If she has, could she explain in greater detail than was given in the press what he had in mind on that relationship? If she cannot do that now, could she encourage him to come to the House to flesh out his ideas so that ordinary Members of Parliament can hear his views, and let him know ours, about any possible relationship between the European Union and defence?
Mrs. Beckett: I speak from memory, but I think this matter might have been raised with the Prime Minister yesterday. I understand and respect my hon. Friend's concerns. The Prime Minister was saying that we want some imaginative thinking on how we can enhance the European contribution to NATO. There is no suggestion, and never has been, that he or the Government wish to undermine NATO, which is the cornerstone of our defence and security policy. It has always been made clear that we would not support, for example, a standing European army. If my hon. Friend or other hon. Members wish to explore the matter further, there will be an opportunity next Wednesday in the debate on the Army.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider and find time for an early debate on the deteriorating state of the economy—that debate to be initiated by the Prime Minister? Is she aware that despite his glib evasions yesterday and the truly gut-wrenching complacency of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the European Commission predicts that Britain will slump to the bottom of the European growth table next year? Does she accept that as the Prime Minister's policies of tax, waste and regulate are responsible for, once again, making Britain the sick man of Europe, he is responsible for coming to the Floor of the House to debate the possible cures for the sickness that he has caused?
Mrs. Beckett: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on trumping the contribution of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in the deleteriousness league. I agree with what I think was the underlying thrust of the hon. Gentleman's observations—that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did an excellent job yesterday of advancing the Government's case on the handling of the economy, although I can well understand that the hon. Gentleman did not like it one little bit.
Mr. Bercow: Glib evasions.
Mrs. Beckett: They were not glib evasions. The problem for the Conservatives is that they were statistics,
1402
which are much harder for them to deal with, especially as they seem not to understand them. The hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friends of complacency. That is not the case. It is clear that they, like the whole Government, recognise the difficulties that some sections of the economy face, but we also recognise how far-fetched are the suggestions of the Conservative party that all the problems arose only during our tenure of office. The pre-Budget statement putting all these matters in context will be made on 3 November and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is looking forward to that. We certainly are.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have seen a welcome renaissance of the British film industry in recent times? Does she recall that in March, a review co-chaired by Stewart Till of Polygram, called "A Bigger Picture", met with fairly widespread approval? I think that it was the Financial Times that said that it was the most comprehensive review of the British film industry for 30 years. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give us some support in ensuring that such an important aspect of Britain's creative industries is given a fair wind, and a debate on the Floor of the House?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know of his strong support for the film industry, and I appreciate his welcome for the review that he mentioned. He will know of the strong support being given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and about his widespread consultations on how we can advance the future of the film industry, whose importance is recognised throughout the House. I shall certainly bear my right hon. Friend's observation in mind. The day for tabling questions to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is next Monday.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I follow the question asked by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who asked whether the Prime Minister would be able to answer questions about his view on what defence co-operation not covered by present arrangements should take place in Europe? Hearing other Ministers speak in Wednesday's debate would not be sufficient.
We are responding to a story that came out through a briefing, so could the Government give us an open register of official briefings to journalists by Ministers and for the Prime Minister, so that the rest of us would know what was said in private? Could we also have a register of the Philip Gould-type groups consulted by the Government and paid for with taxpayers' money, so that we can understand what the Government are being told by other people, in the same way that we hope that the Government will also pay attention to what we say in the Chamber?
Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman has noticed, the Prime Minister comes here every week for half an hour of Question Time in which many such matters can be raised. I am sure that should the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends catch your eye, Madam Speaker, it will be possible for them to raise such issues directly with the Prime Minister. That will certainly meet the point that the hon. Gentleman made. As for openness, as we are a Government who hold open briefings to the Lobby by the Prime Minister's official

1403
spokesman, and who are committed to introducing proposals for freedom of information, we need no lectures from the Opposition on that subject.
Ms Gisela Stuart: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of the grave situation at Longbridge, next to my constituency. Many jobs are threatened there, and although I agree with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the decision is primarily one for Rover, does not the present situation show us that the previous Government left us with deep structural damage to our industrial base? Our supply chain base is weakened and we lack a sufficiently skilled work force to provide the car industry with the skills that it needs. Can space be found in the near future for a debate on how the regional development agencies, in particular, could take a strategic position in developing our supply chain base, thus helping the people at Longbridge in connection with jobs in the car industry, whether with Rover or with one of the other manufacturers?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. It is clear that the difficulties being experienced at Longbridge have been long in the making. She will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met representatives of the company this morning and had a useful discussion. The issues at Longbridge include short-term costs and long-term investment decisions. My hon. Friend is right to say that the present position casts light not only on the reality of our economic inheritance from the Conservatives, but on the need for work such as that of the regional development agencies. I shall bear in mind her view that hon. Members might like to debate the matter in future.
Mr. Howard Flight: It is a long time since we heard announcements about the Food Standards Agency. In view of the depression facing agriculture and the concern of farmers in particular that consumers should know where the food they buy in the shops is produced geographically—and that it has met the standards and quality of production required in this country and represented by the Food Advisory Board standards—might the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the issue of food standard labelling?
Mrs. Beckett: There will be a debate on agriculture on Monday, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in the statement. I hear and welcome his support for greater information to be provided about food, and his support for food standards. It is unfortunate that the setting up of an agency was not a step that the Conservative Government felt inclined to take. However, I always welcome converts and I am glad to hear of his support. I cannot promise a debate in the near future, but I can promise him that the Government intend to press on with the matter.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon.
Friend consider having a debate on science and technology policy in the near future, particularly since the comprehensive spending review allocated a very welcome £1.1 billion to new initiatives? However, the House has
1404
not had an opportunity to consider the philosophy under which those funds should be allocated and distributed. In particular, I am worried by the possibility that, because our partner in the initiative is Wellcome, there might be too much of an emphasis on biochemistry or medicinal science and insufficient emphasis on, say, physics, mathematics or chemical sciences. I wish to make a specific plea to the Government to consider aerospace and space technology, particularly in view of the Beagle 2 project. We should make a representation to the European Space Agency before 30 October as to whether we are willing in principle to commit £25 million to support the Mars 2003 project. May we have an early debate on science and technology policy?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate on those matters, although I recognise his great interest in the issues. Trade and Industry questions will take place on Thursday. I note also the points he makes about the importance of the aerospace industry—a view he knows that I share—and his concerns about science policy. Some of the boundaries in the handling of and approach to the different scientific disciplines that he identifies are becoming rather blurred these days. I share his view that these are matters of great importance. I cannot promise time for a debate in the near future, but I will bear his views in mind.
Mr. Simon Burns: I seek clarification from the Leader of the House on her reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), concerning his request for a debate on the Buenos Aires conference on climate change. When the right hon. Lady said that she had "taken note" of my right hon. Friend's request, did she mean that she had taken note because he asked the question and would do no more, or that she had taken note, would go away and would come up with the answer that the House can debate the question—preferably before the start of the conference, but certainly before we prorogue?
Mrs. Beckett: My answer means what it has always meant when the Leader of the House has said it under any previous Government.
Mr. John Cryer: I wish to support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for an early statement and debate on the Jenkins commission. If the reports are correct—and I think they are likely to be—that Jenkins has opted for the additional member system, it will mean not only that he will be trying to perpetrate an attack on democratic accountability, but that he will have broken the parameters of the investigation. He would have known that if he had read the submission to his commission from the first-past-the-post group, of which I am a member. Sadly, it seems that he was unable to stay off the claret long enough to read it.
Mrs. Beckett: I take that to be a call for a debate on the Jenkins commission report. I shall certainly bear it in mind when the report has been received.
Mr. Julian Brazier: May I also call for an early debate on the Jenkins report? Lord Jenkins was generous enough to spare a full hour during his year

1405
researching it to talk to Members of Parliament here. As one colleague of the right hon. Lady pointed out, we all feel terribly humble before him because most of us have fought for only one political party. None the less, it would be nice if the place that is principally affected by his report had an opportunity to debate his findings.
Mrs. Beckett: What is already clear is that such a debate would certainly be lively.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: Will the Leader of the House clarify exactly what she meant by taking note of the request by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for a debate on climate change before the meeting in Buenos Aires? Will she simply say yes or no to whether the Government take the issue seriously and whether they will find Government time for a debate on it?
Mrs. Beckett: It may save the hon. Gentleman much time and trouble in the future if he bears in mind that usually what I say is what I really mean. When I said that I would take note of the views of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), that is precisely what I meant.
Mr. Bercow: What does that mean?
Mrs. Beckett: It means that I will take note of the hon. Gentleman's views. It is quite straightforward. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford made a proposal, gave the date of a particular conference and asked for a debate. I shall consider that request and, if it is possible to grant it, no doubt I will do so. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman attends business questions often enough to know that there are many requests for debates. The whole purpose is that Members should have the opportunity to
ask or a debate. I cannot say now what debates will be granted.
Mr. Christopher Fraser: Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that the Prime Minister's press office is not trying to influence the present debate about the time of the Independent Television News programme "News at Ten", which was widely discussed by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport this morning and in the press? Does she agree that the issue warrants a debate without the influence of Alastair Campbell?
Mrs. Beckett: I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in the apprehension upon which that question was based.
Mr. Nick Gibb: Given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the International Monetary Fund on 6 October that growth in the United Kingdom economy next year would be cut by 50 per cent., is not it astonishing that hon. Members have to wait a month before the issue can be debated in full and a month before they are told the Government's actual forecast for 1999? How can hon. Members
1406
effectively scrutinise public finances given that the figures in the Blue Book are now completely meaningless, misleading and wrong?
Mrs. Beckett: Few Governments have more experience of figures being misleading and wrong than the Conservatives when they were in power. First, the House did not sit until this Monday. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made it plain that he will be making his pre-Budget statement in about 10 days. That is when the latest information will be available. I am confident that the House awaits it with eager anticipation and, after what has been said today, I feel sure that there will be a full attendance for it.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Is the Leader of the House aware of the statement made by the chief constable of Greater Manchester on Monday that, as a result of a shortfall in funding induced by the comprehensive spending review, there will be a complete ban on recruitment to the police service there from now on? As a result, 400 posts will be lost in the next 12 months. Does she understand the great concern throughout Greater Manchester and certainly in my constituency? Will she ask the Home Secretary to explain to the House the impact of the comprehensive spending review on police services throughout the country and, in particular, in Greater Manchester, so hat I can tell my constituents exactly what the future of policing in the conurbation is to be?
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the statement by the chief constable. The hon. Gentleman asked me to ask the Home Secretary to come to the House to deal with the matter, and my right hon. Friend will, of course, be here for Question Time on Monday.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her reply to the request by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for a debate on foreign affairs was disappointing, as were her replies to hon. Members who raised a certain recent subject? Will she give a categorical assurance that Her Majesty's Government had no political involvement in the recent arrest of a senator from a friendly foreign democracy? Will she ask the Foreign Secretary to confirm to the House next week that the aim of the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy is not to interfere in the internal arrangements of other democratic states, any more than their wish is to have other countries interfere in whatever arrangements we deem it appropriate to make in Northern Ireland?
Mrs. Beckett: The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises have been debated—or at least generally discussed in public. He will be aware of the view that I have expressed that some of these more sensitive issues are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I readily assure him that the matter is not being handled politically; we have taken the view from the outset that it is a legal matter, which is how it has been and continues to be handled.

Housing
[Relevant documents: Tenth report from the Environment, Transport and
Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on Housing (HC 495-I) and
the Government's response thereto (Cm 4080).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
Madam Speaker: I appeal to hon. Members for self-restraint. I know that a number of hon. Members are interested and want to take part in the debates, but I am not able to impose a time limit as the debates are being introduced by Back Benchers and I do not want the limit to apply to them. I simply appeal for self-restraint.
4.10 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the opportunity to debate our housing report and the Government's response to it. I place on record the Committee's thanks to our Clerk and specialist adviser and to our advisers Richard Bate, Peter Chapman and Dr. Christine Whitehead, who gave us so much help in preparing our report. I also thank all those who sent in written evidence and those who came before the Committee to answer our questions—we are extremely grateful to them all. Finally, I thank all the members of the Committee, who worked so hard, and I apologise to the House for the fact that my co-Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), is unable to be here today—she is on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation.
Our inquiry arose out of the previous Government's projection that an extra 4.4 million households would have to be catered for over the next 15 years or so, which represents an increase on the previous projections of about 1 million—that was the key to our inquiry. I was surprised that very few of the people who sent in evidence challenged those figures, even though they raised many other problems. One reason was that there was little detail on how those projections were arrived at. One of the most pleasing aspects of the Government's response was the promise that the next set of projections would include much more detail on how the figures are arrived at, so that there can be much more discussion about whether they are realistic.
If the projections are wrong, there will clearly be problems. If too many households are projected, rows of houses in parts of the country may contain empty properties, and it is extremely depressing to live in a road where some houses are uncared for and untended. It is important that we do not over-provide or over-provide in particular parts of the country.
Equally, it is important that we do not under-provide. If we do, it is almost certain that house prices will increase, which will mean that many people cannot afford to buy a house, giving rise to an increase in the demand for social housing. Ensuring that the projections are right and meeting those projections are extremely important.
The projections show that the extra dwellings that will be needed will be for young single people, for people in middle age who are likely to be living on their own—perhaps through divorce—and, of course, for the increasing number of elderly people.
1408
One of the key questions is where those dwellings should go. There has been a great deal of argument about how many of them can go on to what are crudely called brown-field sites—areas of land that have been used previously. First, the Government suggested about 60 per cent, but the Opposition have looked for a rather higher figure than that. There was evidence to the Select Committee that, in some parts of the country, it would be easy to reach a higher target than 60 per cent.
I believe that we should be a little cautious about making predictions until we have much better information. One of the most useful things will be Lord Rogers's task force, which will carry out the compilation of a database across the country so that we know how much brown-field land there is. That is fundamental. Until we know how much land there is, we cannot prove how realistic the 60 per cent. target is, or whether a higher target can be reached in some parts of the country. I hope that that information will be available within the next 12 months at least.
If there is to be more development on brown-field sites, the Government have to work hard on the issue of contaminated land. The Select Committee on the Environment first looked at contaminated land over 10 years ago, and came up with a series of recommendations. The previous Administration looked at them, rejected them or altered them, but took very little action. I plead with the Government to get on with the regulations for contaminated land. We have to get on with providing the money so that many of the sites can be reclaimed. We will be able to reach a target of 60 per cent. or higher only if we put that in place.
We have to look at the way in which local authorities are hoarding land for industry. I made some inquiries around the local authorities in Greater Manchester about the amount of land they have in the hope of attracting industry to it. When one adds up all such land around Greater Manchester, one realises that it would be impossible to attract that amount of industry to the area, and, if that amount of industry could be attracted, there would be no way in which there would be sufficient people to work in it. Local authorities must make much more effort to hold back a realistic amount of land for the creation of jobs, which is extremely important, while releasing some of the land for housing. That would go a long way towards reaching the target of 60 per cent.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I share the hon. Gentleman's view about the difficulty of deciding how many brown-field sites are available, as opposed to green-field sites. I also take his point that surplus land may be marked for industrial use. Will the hon. Gentleman share with the House his view and that of the Select Committee on green belt land? Does he agree that, wherever the houses go, they should not go on established green belt sites?
Mr. Bennett: There is unanimity across the House that, as far as possible, green belt land should be sacrosanct. However, there is that little phrase, "as far as possible". That reasoning has been behind the tradition of green belt land, and the Committee and I did not deviate from that historical view.
I must point out that many of the people who gave evidence to the Select Committee did not want housing in their area, but they were still working hard to promote

1409
new industries and new jobs. I plead with local authorities, if they are going out to campaign to attract jobs to their area, to accept equal responsibility for providing houses for the people who will carry out that activity.
The core of our report is that we need urban regeneration. We need to make our cities and urban areas work. One of our recommendations was that the Government should produce a White Paper. I am glad that, earlier this week, they announced that we will get an urban White Paper. This is not just a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—the Deputy Prime Minister's Department—but one that goes right across the Government.
Regeneration of our cities must include ensuring that the schools are tip-top, and that we deal with crime and the problems that shops face. Regeneration means improving the whole environment, and many Government Departments need to play a part. I therefore hope that the White Paper will not suffer from departmentitis, but will receive full co-operation in its production.
If we are to regenerate our cities, we must regenerate some of their old buildings. The Committee was lucky enough to visit Poundbury to see the Prince of Wales's proposals for housing. However, I found more encouraging the work that he is doing with the Heritage Trust to try to bring back into residential use many of the old buildings in our cities. In my constituency, we have the Houldsworth mill project, which I hope succeeds. In the years that I have been in the House, many proposals have been made to bring that fine old mill into residential use, but they never quite made it. I hope that this time will be different.
I welcome the Government's response to the issue of revising the planning regulations, but quick action is needed. The Government have given a commitment to revise planning policy guidance note 3 on housing, PPG11 on regional plans and PPG12 on development plans. The release of land for housing is a crucial issue. At the moment, local authority plans have to include a five-year supply. Unless the Government move quickly, the danger is that some builders will race to use green-field sites, knowing that it will be difficult to use them in the future. I hope that the Government can reassure the House that they will move as speedily as possible to revise the planning regulations.
I mentioned the probable increased demand for social housing. The Committee was disappointed by the Government's response on social housing, although we may have been a little harsh in our report.
The Minister for London and Construction has made his reputation in championing the need for social housing, but his appearance before the Committee was disappointing. I understand that he knew the results of the spending review and we did not, but I reiterate that we need much more social housing than the Government are so far committed to providing. It is a disappointing cop-out to say that it is the responsibility of local authorities. If one local authority attempts to provide social housing, it is often taken up by people from neighbouring authorities that have made no provision. The Government need to set a much more realistic target.
The key to the whole process is continuous monitoring. I hope that the Government will report regularly to the House on how much new housing will be built on
1410
brown-field sites. It is very important that the Government succeed in regenerating our cities, because that would improve the quality of life for people who live in them, as well as stop the continual spread of housing into the countryside. I hope that we have a good debate on the report, and, more importantly, that we see action from the Government.
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that an essential measure to regenerate our inner cities and relieve the pressures on the countryside and green-field sites is fiscal
incentives for the building industry? The imposition of value added tax on the regeneration of older properties and the zero-rating of new properties on green-field sites is an anomaly. If the position were harmonised, it would provide an incentive for the building industry.
Mr. Bennett: I agree. If my hon. Friend had read the report, he would know that we have made that point, and that we were pleased by the Government's response. It is crazy that there is no VAT on new building, and that anyone who wants to regenerate buildings within cities, or conversions of old mills or shops or whatever, faces the problem of paying VAT. We are tied by Europe, and we cannot abolish VAT, although that would be the best approach.
I am keen to keep within the promised 15 minutes. I recommend to the House our report, and many aspects of the Government's response. My plea is for action on implementing a sensible housing policy for the next 15 years, so that all our people can enjoy decent homes.
4.24 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who chairs the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, and his colleagues on a timely, important and interesting report. They have done the House a service. Partly in jest, I find it slightly puzzling that the Deputy Prime Minister should have strongly welcomed the report, given that it contains a number of veiled criticisms of his own actions, both in the text and between the lines. There is a bald statement that the Committee found the answers given to it by one junior Minister to be both "vacuous and disingenuous"
The report represents a thinly veiled attack on the dithering and inaction that characterise the Government's attitude to housing provision. The Committee's findings vindicate our consistent criticism of the Deputy Prime Minister's failure to address the problem of household growth and of the Government's inability to engage in joined-up thinking on the important issue of housing.
The report is a valuable contribution to debate. Although it is in places couched in soft language, it is in many ways a damning indictment of the complacency with which the Government have approached a critical issue. It is a call to arms to those of us on both sides of the House who care about the preservation of the countryside and the regeneration of our towns and cities.
I shall take the House through some of the Committee's key findings. I hope that the House will forgive me for indulging in some translation, so that hon. Members who have not had the privilege of reading the report in its entirety may have some of its flavour, stripped of the spin that Ministers and their advisers have sought to put on it.

1411
The proposals in the White Paper "Planning for the Communities of the Future" are, in the words of the Committee,
"well-intentioned, but vague."
The report states:
"We do not believe they will be adequate to achieve their aims."
In other words, unless the Government decide to do something instead of just talking about the problems, the countryside will be swamped with new developments, and our towns and cities will suffer decay and deprivation. The report is certainly a long way short of the ringing endorsement to which the Deputy Prime Minister laid claim on Monday.
The report repeatedly stresses the need for a brown-field development target of 60 per cent. or more, to be applied as soon as possible. The Committee supports
"an interim national target…of at least 60 per cent., which should be applied in the coming round of Regional Planning Guidance, rather than over 10 years as the Government has proposed."
If I may take the liberty of paraphrasing once again, unless the Government decide to do something instead of just talking, the green belt will not be saved, and our towns and cities will continue to be scarred by derelict sites. Again, that seems to fall short of the endorsement heralded by the Secretary of State.
The report continues:
"It is important that the target set should be challenging, e.g. 60 per cent. or higher—some witnesses thought 75 per cent. was possible".
For the Government to state—as the Deputy Prime Minister did on Monday—that that constitutes support for the Government's 60 per cent. target is, to coin a phrase, both vacuous and disingenuous.
Our manifesto at the general election stated that we would set a target of more than 60 per cent. We have since pressed the Government to fix a target of two thirds. I hope that the Minister can rise to announce that, in the light of the Select Committee's evidence, he will increase the target to two thirds with immediate effect.
The report is not just critical of what the Deputy Prime Minister has not done. It attacks what little he has done to discharge his duties—for example, in relation to the task force which he set up under Lord Rogers. The report states:
"We are concerned as to whether the Task Force will be able to undertake the wide range of tasks it has been set … It must not be used as a means of causing delay."
Again, the implication is clear. The Committee believes what Conservative Members have long suspected: as with so many other task forces and reviews set up over the past 18 months, the Government see this as a way of kicking the ball into the long grass and hoping that the problem will go away.
Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: I will certainly give way to the Chairman, although I do not wish to give way again, because of the scarcity of time.
Mr. Bennett: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the previous Government did not produce in the years after
1412
the target was put forward a register of how much brown-field land was available? If we had that information, everybody could put forward a realistic figure, not one based on guesswork.
Mr. Burns: I understand and have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is important not to overlook the fact that, at the same time during that time scale, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was determined to ensure that more and more building was done on brown-field sites when it was feasible, so as to protect and preserve the countryside and green-field sites.
The Committee states:
"Central government must support local authorities when they restrict the use of green-field sites."
Does the Deputy Prime Minister now accept that he was wrong on the principle of the issue to force West Sussex county council to cater for an extra 13,000 homes in its local plans, flying in the face of opposition from all three parties on the county council and of the advice of the planning inspectorate?
When the Minister replies, perhaps he will care to tell the House this, despite the answer which the Under-Secretary of State used as a dodge at Question Time on Tuesday to avoid the issue. To get away from the niceties of the sub judice rule that the Under-Secretary used, I am asking whether the Minister would care to answer the question on the principle rather than on the individual case.
How can that decision be squared with the words of the Select Committee and the Deputy Prime Minister's support for the report? How can such developments be squared with the recommendations and the Government's own rhetoric on transport? In particular, can the Minister explain how allowing major developments on green-field sites away from shops and other facilities contributes to the aim of reducing the need to travel? To judge from these glaring inconsistencies, the Government are scarcely capable of joined-up writing, let alone joined-up thinking, on the issue.
The Committee adds its voice to our own and the voices of numerous other interested bodies in calling for urgent revision to the Department's planning guidance notes, particularly PPG3 and PPG13. The Government have said that they intend to issue new guidance, and we welcome the commitment given in the Government's response to the report on Monday. The report rightly states that, without a clear planning framework,
"there will be uncertainty and the likelihood that in some regions the Government's policies on urban regeneration, integrated transport and sustainability will be ignored."
When can we expect to see this new guidance? Does the Minister have any news for us on that during this debate?
Why, when the Deputy Prime Minister announced the 60 per cent. target as long ago as February, has there been no movement so far to start giving effect to that target? He increasingly resembles an archer with only a small target to aim at and a quiver as empty as his rhetoric. The means to replace his stock of arrows are within his own power and the longer he delays, the more people will suspect that he does not want to start shooting at all.
The report also calls for the Government to announce a strategy for meeting the target set by the previous Government for reducing the amount of empty property,

1413
and to issue advice to local authorities. I take the opportunity to add our voice to that of the Select Committee and remind the Government that Labour-controlled councils currently have the highest proportion of stock awaiting letting. The 10 authorities with the highest proportion of properties ready for letting or awaiting minor repairs are all, not unexpectedly, Labour-controlled.
Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us what plans the Government have to make sure that Labour councils bring their performance into line with that achieved by Conservative councils. Is he aware that the number of vacant dwellings is rising? There are now some 80,000 vacant dwellings under local authority management, accounting for almost 2.5 per cent. of the stock. How do the Government propose to tackle that major and growing problem?
Local authorities and the framework within which they operate will play a key role in determining the success of any strategy to bring more brown-field sites into use.
Mr. Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: I am sorry—I will not give way, because time is short and so many other hon. Members wish to speak.
The Government may rest assured that Conservative councillors will continue to protect the green belt against development as long as they are not further hindered by decisions from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Conservative councillors in towns and cities will continue to urge the reuse of derelict sites and the clean-up of contaminated land. What measures does the Minister plan to introduce to ensure consistency across the planning system to give effect to the target of 60 per cent. of building on brown-field sites? Are the Government prepared to use their influence with the Labour-run authorities in our towns and cities, which control much of the brown land in question, to ensure that local authorities play their part in freeing brown-field sites for housing purposes? How does the Minister intend to encourage local authorities to allow brown land currently designated for industrial or commercial use to be used instead for residential purposes where feasible?
At present, planning law entitles local authorities to ask for contributions from developers towards the cost of overcoming genuine planning obstructions, such as widening road junctions or expanding the capacity of local schools. Conservative councillors will continue to seek fair agreements with developers for the joint funding of necessary local improvements.
Some local authorities allegedly abuse the system in order to finance unrelated spending. I understand that one local authority even demanded a contribution towards play areas from developers who were providing sheltered housing for the elderly. Such abuse discourages would-be developers from making applications to use brown-field sites. What will the Government do to prevent such seemingly sharp practices?
What line do the Government plan to take on the draft EU rules that will bar public bodies from contributing to pollution clean-up, and will insist that all land be returned to its natural state, regardless of its end use? When will
1414
the Government fix parameters for pollution clean-up, so that developers and local authorities know exactly where they stand?
The Government's response to the report is a poor attempt to paint it as an endorsement of their approach. That claim is not supported by a careful reading of the report. In fact, as the Deputy Prime Minister said on Monday, pretty much everybody claims to agree with the basic principles that we need more sustainable patterns of development and that we should minimise the use of green-field sites and maximise reuse of brown-field sites. The report exposes the hypocrisy of a Government who purport to defend the countryside and promote urban regeneration, while all the time taking decisions such as that in West Sussex, which undermine and frustrate their declared aims.
When the report was published, Friends of the Earth stated:
"the Select Committee has not been fooled by John Prescott's vague rhetoric."
The Government's response represents more of the same. The Select Committee was not fooled then, and I assure Ministers that the House will not be fooled now.
The Government's response is woefully inadequate. Its so-called strategy for meeting demand for new housing has been exposed as a sham. It is a catalogue of delay, indecision and downright incompetence. Instead of trying to paint a gloss over the report and paper over the cracks in their failed approach, the Government should go back to the drawing board and urgently consider relaying the entire foundations of their strategy to meet the problems facing the countryside and urban regeneration.
4.38 pm
Mrs. Christine Butler: The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has not moved the debate further on—indeed, it has been stripped of context. He has not given due consideration to the Government's response to the Select Committee report—a response that was broadly welcomed by Labour Members. The big strategy of sustainability is one that we must all endorse. To move matters on, it is up to all of us to engage in debate on the detail of how to implement that strategy.
The Government and the Select Committee require sustainability to be at the heart of the debate—sustainability in respect of environmental, social and economic concerns. I urge the Government, when considering local authority planning application assessments, to give as much weight to social and economic criteria as to environmental criteria. That is extremely important, because, if we are not careful, the debate will shift in favour of the environmental agenda, which must not be considered in isolation from the social and economic agendas.
A big issue that has not yet been properly addressed, but which is all too evident, is the existence of huge regional differences in need and capacity. There is an enormous difference between north and south in general, but I should like to highlight the case of the south-east, where some of the biggest problems are found. The expected provision in that area is approximately one third of the 4.4 million new homes that have to be built. That is a pretty tall order. I welcome the so-called brown-field task force, although I would prefer the term "previously

1415
used land" to "brown field", as I do not think the latter term is appropriate. The task force has been set up to examine urban capacity for regeneration needs, especially in the London area.
The problem is one not merely of providing more housing, but of creating balanced communities. It is important to pay attention to all an area's needs—economic, social and environmental. Ringing the London region are commuter districts. The majority of my constituents commute to their jobs. If that carries on, it will become unsustainable in terms of both transport and the provision of social housing.
I welcome some of the comments in the Government's response, but one or two issues need further detailed examination. In the context of fiscal strategies, there is a real need to redefine conversions, even though the Government would encounter great difficulty with the European Commission, and there would be a prolonged debate about the equalisation of the value added tax regime between new build and conversions. However, if it is at all possible to redefine conversions in the context of the need for new housing, it might bear down on the existing 17.5 per cent. VAT levy. That would be a great achievement.
A further issue with which we must take great care—one which Friends of the Earth and others might push without giving it proper consideration—is that of the green-field levy. It sounds like a great idea, especially if the money was to be put into brown-field site conversion and solving the problems that exist there. However, although I do not want the Government to abandon the idea, it should be a less immediate priority and the Government should give further consideration to the pros and cons of imposing such a levy.
Of the greatest urgency and importance are the new planning policy guidance notes. Already, local authorities are proposing and adopting plans, and regional planning conferences are at various stages of reporting and adoption. If we do not get the new PPGs in soon, we shall leave ourselves open to speculative developments on green-field land.
Mr. Anthony Steen: The hon. Lady mentions PPGs, but does she not agree that the major problem facing the south-east is that 868,000 new houses are scheduled to be built in the south-east of England alone? I am sure that she would agree that the consequences, including the use of public funds for infrastructure, are far-reaching and should be addressed in the House now. Has the hon. Lady actually envisaged what 868,000 houses will mean to the whole of the south-east of England?
Mrs. Butler: I am following my own track and my own agenda. If I am allowed to continue, the hon. Gentleman will hear the answer to his question. The lack of attention paid to the issues dealt with by the Committee and to the smaller points that I am highlighting now is what really matters. We know what the figures are.
There has already been speculative interest in green-field sites in my constituency. The authority would like to reject that, but cannot do so, because of legal niceties. In 1951, a certain site received planning
1416
permission for mixed-use, retail and housing development. Try as it might, since that time the authority has been unable to reallocate land use policy in that area, even though the circumstances in the constituency and the wider region have changed dramatically. Why is the authority unable to act? The answer is that a road was built—one road through the whole site, with the result that the site holds developers' interest unfairly.
That is why I welcome a hint in the proposed PPG3 that the Government might be able to strengthen local authorities' resolve when applications for renewal are made. Perhaps huge compensation need not be payable to the inheritors of the land when the local authority can prove that the application is unsuitable. There should be a further requirement: if a proposal has not been entirely developed within a certain period, it fails, and a new application is required. The nonsense of digging a trench or laying a bit of tarmac on a site should no longer be accepted. There is a loophole, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to these concerns as soon as possible, if that is appropriate.
Greater consideration should be given to the issues that I have raised. Local authorities are being stymied in their attempts to provide the most sustainable solutions within their own neighbourhoods and communities.
4.48 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: This is an important debate. I pay tribute to the Select Committee for its work on an important subject.
We are told that 4.4 million new houses are to be built by 2016. That is such a large figure that none of us can grasp what 4.4 million houses would look like. Is that equal to the whole of London or Reading? I wonder whether the Government are planning an exhibition on the Upper Committee Corridor to give us an idea of what 4.4 million houses would look like on the ground.
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): Those were the hon. Gentleman's Government's figures.
Mr. Steen: The Minister says that they were our Government's figures, but his Government have adopted them. I want to know how the Government came up with 4.4 million houses. Did the boffins in Kingsway think up that figure? What science do the officials profess to practise? Do they stick pins into lists of figures? What are their qualifications? Is there a special science for working out how many houses are needed?
Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the process has gone on for many years? The interesting point is that officials have got the figures right over time.
Mr. Caborn: Thirty years.
Mr. Bennett: They have got the figures right for 30 years. It is dangerous to poke fun at the figures. We are keen that there should be more background information about the figures so that people can analyse them, but their track record is extremely good.
Mr. Steen: I would hate to argue with the hon. Gentleman, who was my pair many years ago and whose

1417
interest in and illustrious track record on the environment and housing is well known in the House, but the fact that figures have been allegedly proved right over 30 years does not mean that the projected figures are correct. The process has worked only because it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy—we go on building houses and people move into them. That does not mean that the figures are right, or that the science is right. The Select Committee could do the House a great service by inquiring in detail into the science and deciding whether it is flawed.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a document published in 1997 entitled "The Economic Determinants of Household Formation—A literature review", which the previous Government commissioned in 1996. It contains a great deal of information about the variables used in the prediction of future household growth and need. The figure has not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, been plucked out of thin air. It was defended yesterday by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who shared a platform with me at a meeting. The right hon. Gentleman is well apprised of the fact that a great deal of work has gone into calculating the figure and the hon. Gentleman should understand—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long.
Mr. Steen: It was not only far too long but unhelpful. It would be wise if I did not give way again because of the danger of spurious remarks distracting the House from the important points that I shall make. [Interruption.] It is good to hear that those on the Government Front Bench are particularly verbal and volatile today—that always means that one is dealing with points that worry them. Clearly they are concerned about what I shall say and they are trying to stop me saying it, but I shall not be deterred.
I have challenged the acceptance of the figures regardless of which Government proposed them. I am not afraid to say that I would challenge a Conservative Government if we were in office. Unfortunately we are not, so I am challenging the Labour Government to question the figures. I will not dwell on that point.
If we accept the figure of 4.4 million homes, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy and we should consider how it will affect the south-west, where 438,000 houses are to be built. The Devon structure plan, which includes my constituency, proposed 90,500 homes. That was not enough, and after a public inquiry, the figure was raised to 95,000.
The South Hams, which comprises the majority of my constituency, will have 13,500 additional new dwellings by 2011. That is curious because the House of Commons Library concluded that my constituency is one of the most beautiful in Britain. It did so by examining the number of environmental beauty categories into which the Totnes and South Hams area falls. It has the heritage coastline, areas of great landscape value, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest, the Dartmoor national park, conservation areas and so on. How could 13,500 houses be built in such an area without destroying green fields or eating into special environmentally protected areas? Furthermore, it is said
1418
that a further 300 acres is needed for employment land and, within the area covered by Devon county council, 3,000 acres is needed for employment land.
It is argued that new homes will be required to house the existing population. I challenge that. We are told that the vast increase in the number of houses is simply necessary to provide for a larger number of individual households, mainly because of divorce, which will create a need for 40 per cent. of the new homes. In addition, 30 per cent. of the new homes are needed because people live longer and another 30 per cent. are needed for young people who leave home and move around the country for work purposes.
I was told that the housing projection for the South Hams is intended to rehouse people who already live there. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to this point. In 1981, the population of South Hams was 69,993. By 1997, the number had risen to 80,200—an increase of about 18 per cent. By contrast, the population in the whole county of Devon increased by 5 per cent. only. It cannot be that more than 90,000 new houses are needed to redistribute the existing population if there are dramatic increases in population numbers. The population increase in the South Hams has been out of all proportion to that in the county and in the south-west. In no way is that redistribution; it is plain inward migration.
More houses are needed because people come from other places with their families, pets and motor cars to live in Devon, not because overcrowded households need more space. In the three months ending March 1998, 8,233 additional people moved into the county. Since 1988, 8,000 people have been moving into the county every three months. Only during the economic crisis in 1991 did the figure drop. That means that 32,000 people move to Devon every year. That is why the new houses are needed—not to rehouse local people, which is entirely another matter. The county council says that 90,000 new houses are required for local people. That is not true; it is a figment of the planners' and statisticians' imaginations.
My experience supports that. On Saturday afternoons when I have little else to do, I knock on doors at random. That is one of my hobbies, and I should declare it as an interest. Oddly, I find that most of the people whose doors I knock on are newcomers, not people who have moved from other parts of Devon.
Adding to the population rather than redistributing it creates enormous pressure on the local infrastructure. For example, the building of new houses has been banned in Dartmouth because the sewerage system cannot cope. In Ivybridge, the sewerage system is backing up because so many people use it and the facilities are not sufficient.
The Government's housing projections, if implemented, would destroy tens of thousands of acres of green-field land, but in the South Hams they will eat into the special categories of beauty that the House of Commons Library has highlighted as particularly important.
One of the greatest ironies is that the very beauty that attracts people to my constituency will be destroyed by the buildings that they are intending to occupy. Who is running the county council? I am afraid that it is the Liberals. Who is running the Torbay unitary authority that governs part of my constituency? Again, it is the Liberals. Who is running the South Hams district council? I am afraid that it is the Liberals.

1419
On 30 July, the Liberal county council whipped in all its councillors to attend a debate on the structure plan. They approved the Government's structure plan for the building of 90,000 new houses, despite strong opposition from the Conservatives. That occurred on the afternoon of 30 July. In the evening of 30 July, the Liberals launched a campaign opposing the 90,000 figure that they had approved that afternoon. They are now running around Devon organising meetings and campaigning against the proposal that they passed on the afternoon of 30 July. That is a good Liberal story, is it not? The Liberals talk about sustainable development, but those 90,000 houses are unsustainable. They talk about environmental sensitivity, but they are not the least bit sensitive to the environment.
I must now conclude. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I am glad that Labour Members have enjoyed my comments and are ready to respond to them.
I propose a solution to the problem. The Government could ask the local authorities in Devon to agree on a sustainable figure. The Liberals on the Devon county council said that they passed the Government's structure plan because they feared that, if they did not, the Government would increase the figure. If the Government would tell Devon county council, "We will not increase the number of houses, so go back to the other local authorities and come up with a figure that you think is sustainable", the Government would not have to call in the plan. That outcome is inevitable, as the plan would have disastrous consequences in a county as beautiful as Devon—and certainly in the South Hams.
My proposal amounts to a more democratic way of handling the matter. When the Minister replies perhaps he could consider what I believe is a very sensible approach: asking the local authorities to provide a more sustainable figure. I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that my comments have been helpful to the House.
5.1 pm
Ms Hazel Blears: I welcome the report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee and the recommendations contained therein. I compliment Committee members on the huge amount of work that they have undertaken in compiling the report. I understand that they have seen at least 30 sets of witnesses and received more than 200 memorandums. It has greatly assisted those hon. Members, like myself, who do not serve on the Committee to see the depth of consideration that Committee members have given to these important issues.
Contrary to the assertions made by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), I consider the report to be an example of joined-up thinking and joined-up government. It raises issues regarding not just housing but the sustainable development of communities. It will ensure that new housing developments take account of environmental and transport factors. A key recommendation in the report is that housing should be located close to people's places of employment so that they do not have to travel great distances to work. That recommendation is essential to regenerating our towns and cities.
The report is a good example of cross-departmental thinking and it begins to touch on many important issues. It also echoes many of the recommendations in the report
1420
of the social exclusion unit, "Bringing Communities Together". We must tackle some very serious issues, not simply housing matters, if we are to regenerate and renew many inner-city areas.
In the limited time available, I shall concentrate on the Committee's recommendations regarding urban areas and inner cities because my constituency is one of the poorest and most deprived inner-city areas in the country. In inner cities our problems are not about a shortage of land, but more about the breakdown of families and communities and the wholesale migration of owner-occupiers, leaving behind dereliction and decay. That is a very difficult issue to tackle in the long term.
I believe that housing must play a major role in urban regeneration. Housing constitutes 80 per cent. of development and is the key to improving our communities. We must bring empty properties back into use. The report's recommendations regarding harmonisation of value added tax on renovations and conversions are crucial. We must ensure that, as far as possible, there is a level playing field for new developments and conversions.
There are several problem areas in Salford which illustrate some of the difficulties that the report tries to tackle. I shall touch briefly on some of them. The Broughton area has a huge problem with small terraced housing. There has been an influx of private landlords, and owner-occupiers have moved out of the city. Indiscriminate letting policies of housing associations and private landlords have produced nuisance tenants who have driven out the majority of good, decent people who formerly lived in those communities.
We are beginning to regenerate the area. A joint single regeneration budget project with our neighbours in Manchester is working well, but it is difficult to encourage private developers to help us. I am delighted that the report highlights the action by English Partnerships to provide incentives and gap funding for developers to encourage them into our inner-city areas. Their assistance is crucial if we are to stabilise our communities and give local people some hope that things will change and improve. We must convince them to stay in our inner cities.
The recommendation for sequential planning consideration, whereby developers must show that they have considered using previously developed land before they are allowed to develop new sites, will be incredibly helpful in inner-city areas. However, we must question the future of small terraced housing. I received a letter only this week from a constituent in Kersal, which is an area of such housing. It is just one example of the hundreds of letters that I receive on this subject. My constituent explains that she is the owner of a two-bedroom terraced property which she cannot sell. She believes that the main problem lies with builders and property developers who are flinging up estates of semi-detached homes with carpets, curtains and gardens which cost about the same as her terraced property. Many first-time buyers are opting for those new starter homes rather than the traditional terraced housing. That leaves us with the real problem of how to encourage occupation in many such areas. Wholesale slum clearance is clearly not an option: it is too expensive and it destroys communities. However, in many parts of the north there is a real question about the relevance of terraced housing.

1421
Another part of the city that has suffered huge problems in recent years is Seedley and Langworthy, where all of the problems of our inner cities—crime, unemployment and poor education—coalesce. We have produced a Seedley and Langworthy action plan which is designed to tackle those problems. Housing is a key regeneration factor and relies on the concept of a partnership of local people. That partnership is led by the community and involves business, voluntary groups, housing associations and a private developer. We have also almost persuaded a building society to join us to talk about how it can contribute to housing regeneration. Building societies are notoriously reluctant to become involved in regeneration, and I am particularly proud that we have been able to secure that assistance.
The action plan for Seedley and Langworthy is not just about housing; it is about education, health and jobs. It proposes the establishment of a community housing company so that local people can determine who lives in the area and how best to achieve regeneration. It is a 10-year plan because we recognise that many problems will not be solved overnight: we will require improvements, year on year. However, local people are determined to tackle the existing problems.
There are just 3,000 homes in the area, and 600 of them are empty. They have been boarded and bricked up or torched and left derelict and in decay because good, decent families have been driven out by crime and other inner-city problems. We must bring those properties back into beneficial use: that is the key to sustainable regeneration.
We must also tackle the problem of private landlords. The report says that the private rented sector has acted as a safety valve. That might be true in some areas, but the private rented sector in Salford is the source of much deterioration and decay. My heart sinks whenever I see a "For Rent" sign in my constituency because I know that it signals that another area is in decline. The owner-occupiers have gone and the absentee landlords and nuisance neighbours have arrived. I know that they will drive people out and that we will see properties boarded up, bricked up and torched. It is almost a logical progression. We must break that cycle of decay that is apparent in so many inner-city areas.
I have written to Ministers requesting regulations governing licensing. I would like to see housing benefit sanctions applied to some absent landlords—there is nothing more effective than hitting them in the pocket. Absentee landlords receive housing benefit and they do not care to whom they rent their properties. They do not manage their properties properly and they are not responsible landlords. I am not referring to every private landlord, but in many parts of my constituency a great deal of that goes on.
The city has a voluntary registration scheme for landlords and about 50 per cent. of them have signed up, but it is the good ones who sign up, the bad ones do not want to be involved. They do not want to be responsible for their properties. The issue must be tackled. Housing benefit sanctions, although difficult to impose, would concentrate minds wonderfully and I urge Ministers to consider them seriously.
We have a lot of hope in Salford. Although there are many problems, we are tackling them together. There is a long way to go, but the provision of decent, safe, warm,
1422
affordable and high-quality housing will be the key to our city's renewal and the urban renaissance that is categorised in the report. I welcome the prospect of an urban White Paper which will bring together our thinking across a range of Departments and provide a key and catalyst to urban regeneration.
Cities can be exciting and vibrant places. It is not true that the countryside is the rural idyll and that cities are bad places to live—they can be full of life, the arts and culture. They can have a real buzz. I want my city to have that buzz and to come up from the bottom. We have reached rock bottom and there is only one direction in which to go. We are coming up and fighting back, and I know that the Labour Government will give us the best chance that we have had for the past 20 or 30 years to regenerate our city and make Salford a better place to live, work and bring up families. We are determined to work on it together.
5.10 pm
Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome the topical nature of the housing report and part if not all of the Government's response to it. However, I should like to highlight some issues on which I feel that the Government's response is weak or possibly unhelpful.
First, let me turn to the housing projection figures. The report calls the estimate of 4.4 million new homes
"the best one there is",
yet in a report in The Guardian on Monday, senior Government sources are quoted as saying that 5 million new homes would be a more realistic estimate. If that is the view of senior Government sources, and given that it will be significantly harder to identify sites for that increased number of new homes, it should be out in the open and not hidden away in the inside pages of The Guardian.
Secondly, on the national target for development on brown-field sites, and perhaps anticipating the contribution from Conservative Members, who no doubt will be calling for a target that is higher than 60 per cent., it is worth reminding the House of their record in government. Under the Tories, an average of about six in 10 homes were built on green-field sites, so the shadow Minister was right the first time when he said that the Tory Government were intent on developing more homes on green-field sites. It is a pity that they have discovered only recently that there is more to be gained by defending the countryside than by building all over it.
The Liberal Democrats do not consider a 60 per cent. target for development on brown-field land to be particularly ambitious. If the right policies were in place, more could be achieved. For instance, the Council for the Protection of Rural England argues that the capacity of cities and towns for new housing is a matter of policy rather than physical constraint. The 60 per cent. target should be an interim target, a stepping stone to a tougher target of 75 per cent.
Thirdly, there is the problem of defining brown-field land. The Government need to refine their definition and make a distinction between sites previously used for housing or industrial developments and ex-MOD land, such as abandoned airfields, which may mostly comprise of green fields. Establishing a new category of land in the development hierarchy, which we have dubbed

1423
taupe-field, would enable such sites to be considered for development after consideration of recycled land. The definition could include, for instance, land adjacent to an out-of-town development or situated by a road of at least B status or used for specific purposes. The development hierarchy would then prioritise conversion of old buildings; then development on brown-field sites; then taupe-field sites; and, finally, green-field sites.
That might help to defuse the controversies surrounding proposed developments, such as the proposal for 50,000 new homes on ex-MOD airfields near Cambridge. The new definition would also address some of the Select Committee's concerns that,
"by promoting Brownfield land, regardless of its location, we continue to encourage unsustainable forms of settlement."
Fourthly, a new planning policy guidance note 3 must be issued without delay. It is the simplest means of ensuring that the desired changes to planning policy are implemented forthwith. Otherwise, building on green-field land will continue apace. The Government must provide a firm date by which it is to be published. The Department's best estimate today was that it would be some time early next year. I encourage the Minister to give a more precise date.
Fifthly, one must consider the role of the regional planning conferences which are to spearhead the Government's approach to the provision of future housing. I agree with the CPRE that there is no demonstrable commitment to move away from the policy of "predict and provide". The regional planning conferences have apparently received no advice on how to plan other than according to that policy. They are under-resourced and lack any statutory basis, so they are ill-equipped to deliver the Government's strategy of "plan, monitor and manage".
Sixthly, other hon. Members have mentioned the need to reduce migration. I agree with the Government that strong urban development is needed to slow down or stop net out-migration and that there is a key role for the regional development agencies. I support the policy, but we need a clear statement from the Government on whether the improvements to health, education and transport will be delivered regardless of the economic downturn and its effect on Government spending plans. The provision of better hospitals, schools and transport in urban areas would help to stop that migration.
There is one last area to consider that has been touched on today—tax reform and financial incentives. Tax changes could influence dramatically developers' choice of green-field or brown-field sites, but I fear that the Government have yet to take action. For instance, on the green-field development levy, the Government
"is considering the use of economic instruments to further our planning objectives"
but no decision has yet been taken as to whether to proceed. I find that response disappointing.
Mr. James Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a levy were charged on building a house on a green-field site, the price of those houses would go up to take account of the tax? That would provide an incentive to those who wish to build
1424
executive-style homes in out-of-town development areas, so a green-field levy would have the opposite effect to the one the hon. Gentleman describes.
Mr. Brake: That is not necessarily the case, particularly in locations where there is direct competition between building on green-field sites and building on brown-field sites. The competitive nature of the market will ensure that those house prices remain broadly the same.
The figures supplied by the Civic Trust suggest that some £200 million per annum could be raised by a 10 per cent. levy on green-field land values. If 75 per cent. of that money were spent on cleaning up contaminated land, the remaining £50 million per annum would purchase nearly 15,000 acres of arable land, which I understand from the Library is the equivalent of 53 Hyde parks. Each year we could purchase that quantity of land on the back of the green-field development levy and provide green lungs in urban and rural areas.
There is also the VAT anomaly. Why should people pay 17.5 per cent. on the conversion of properties and no VAT on new build? The Government's response is mixed. In response to an Adjournment debate, Helen Liddell commented that the VAT issue is complex, and a reduced rate could only be applied to social housing, not all housing.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should be referred to by constituency.
Mr. Brake: The then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, now the Minister of State, Scottish Office, with responsibility for education and industry, said that in March. She felt that the move would result in taxation loss and was not convinced by it. A few months later, in May 1998, a junior Environment Minister said that a refurbishment VAT cut was under consideration. In their response to the report, the Government say that
"unifying VAT would help to provide a more level playing field for conversions".
There is clearly a need for a statement from the Government on their stance in relation to the VAT anomaly, and whether they intend to remove it. There are almost 800,000 empty homes and 800,000 potential homes in England situated in buildings suitable for redevelopment. That underlines the importance of evening out the anomaly as soon as possible.
There is also the matter of roll-over capital gains tax. As hon. Members may be aware, there is a loophole that allows farmers to purchase additional land and thereby to escape capital gains tax. That encourages building and tax evasion.
Site value rating is a subject close to Liberal Democrat hearts, which we like to mention when the opportunity arises. Will the Government consider replacing the uniform business rate with site value rating, a system that taxes the value of land rather than the use made of it? That would encourage landowners to make use of their land, rather than leaving it derelict.
Finally, I accept that limited progress is being made on maximising development on brown-field sites, but the Government must move further and faster. With 110 sq km of countryside disappearing under concrete every year, every week's delay in implementing the Government's new

1425
policy means that a further 2 sq km of countryside are lost for ever. If they continue to procrastinate, the Government's legacy to future generations will be row after row of identikit homes marching across down and vale. They will never be forgiven.
5.21 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman: The Select Committee's support for the Government's proposal that at least 60 per cent. of new homes should be provided on brown-field sites arises from a view of housing as a critical part of regeneration, and of regeneration as linked to jobs, training, transport, environment and the provision of social amenities. The key question is whether we have the mechanisms and policies to achieve that in the shortest possible time.
We are in a period of great change. We are embarking on a policy of integrated regional strategies. We are doing that through the creation of regional development agencies—which, I remind the Opposition, were strongly opposed by them—and through the development of regional chambers. In the draft guidance to regional development agencies published earlier this week, they are asked to adopt an integrated approach to the economy, employment, social exclusion and physical decay. The strategy is to be drawn up in co-operation with the regional chambers. For the first time there is a clear statement, guidance and structure for a regional policy on integrated development, to improve housing, the economy and the environment.
I must, however, express concern about the regional planning conferences, which are to assume increasing importance. Can the Minister assure me that the guidance given to regional planning conferences will ensure that they act in harmony with the regional economic strategies to be developed by the agency in co-operation with the elected regional chamber?
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Ellman: I am sorry, but, in view of the time constraints, I cannot.
Exciting regeneration is currently under way in Everton, a deprived part of my constituency—an area where there is much dereliction, male unemployment stands at 37.5 per cent., and 80 per cent. of pupils in the partnership area involved are eligible for free school meals. Hope university college is spearheading a multimillion pound investment, transforming the disused area of the listed St. Francis Xavier school and the site around it into a major centre for arts, drama and economic development, together with accommodation. Nearby, the private sector is converting the listed disused Collegiate school into flats for sale, and near there the Riverside housing association is converting a disused listed Georgian terrace into a mixed-use development—shops, offices and flats—for a combination of rent and shared ownership.
The result of all that activity is the provision of much-needed homes on brown-field sites, educational opportunities, jobs and an improved environment, giving hope to people currently living in an abandoned and largely derelict area. Achieving that development has
1426
been a complex task. A wide variety of funding sources have been called on—for example, English Partnerships, European funding, the Housing Corporation, the college and private sector funding.
Much has been achieved, but how much more could be achieved there and in similar areas if we had a comprehensive policy, with the mechanisms available for that policy to be used for inner-city regeneration? The steps that could be taken include reducing the 17.5 per cent. VAT on conversions, recognising the need to plan for and provide affordable housing, dealing with land assembly and contamination, recognising the new regional development agencies as an important resource for the locality, and harnessing public and private sector funding.
I see much that is encouraging in recent Government policy statements. The document "Fair deal for communities" and the report on a new approach to deprived neighbourhoods advocate joined-up thinking in situations of social breakdown. I am encouraged by the announcement of a new urban White Paper by the Secretary of State earlier this week, which shows that we are ready to adopt such thinking as part of mainstream policy. In that way we can meet housing need to its maximum on brown-field sites, regenerate the inner cities and build a new future for communities in an economically and environmentally sustainable way.
5.26 pm
Mr. James Gray: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). Several other colleagues who have served with me on the Environment Committee over the past 18 months have spoken in the debate.
May I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who puts up with our personal foibles and our use of hyperbole on some occasions with remarkable good humour and tolerance? All members of the Committee are grateful to him for it. It must be a particularly difficult job to be the Darby to the formidable Joan supplied by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is sorry that she cannot be in the Chamber today for the debate, but who approaches the issues that we discuss in the Select Committee with a refreshing robustness of mind.
That is reflected in the report, which goes to such great lengths to criticise—fairly heavily in some parts—what the Government have done. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich would be the first to acknowledge that she was ready to do so, were she in her place this afternoon.
The criticism in the report is slightly unusual, as most of our discussion tends to achieve virtual unanimity. The report was agreed unanimously by the Committee. Despite the cross-party banter that we have heard this afternoon, the issues that we are discussing are issues which we as a nation must examine, and are not essentially party political.
On the number of houses that we will require between now and 2016, I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who went to great lengths to rubbish—a rather unpleasant word—the figures. In Committee, I went to some length to try to find holes in the figures produced by my former colleagues, the excellent civil servants in the Department of the Environment, but no amount of effort on my part could

1427
produce an argument to show that 4.4 million was necessarily wrong. Indeed, I was horrified to discover that the likelihood was that the figure might even be higher than 4.4 million new households, based on the statistical projections which were being used. It is probably not all that sensible at the start of the debate to assert that the figures are wrong. They appear to be correct, as far as statistical projections can be correct.
A more interesting question is why there will be 4.4 million new houses. The answer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, is primarily the breakdown of families, which is accelerating at such an alarming rate, and because children are tending to wish to leave home earlier than they did when I was a youngster. My experience was that one stayed at home until 21, as I did when I was at university; I stayed at home to begin with in Glasgow and thereafter moved to a bedsit for a number of years. I would never have contemplated having a flat or a house probably until I was well married and into my 30s. Indeed, I did not own any property until I was 35.
That frame of mind has perhaps changed. People nowadays tend to leave home much earlier and then to demand from the nation some form of accommodation at the age of 16. I do not believe that that is right. I do not necessarily believe that society should provide enough houses to accommodate all of the tragedies that come about as a result of family breakdown. If we were to restrict to a degree the availability of new housing in the places where people wanted to be, youngsters might be encouraged to stay at home for a little longer. That might even help some families to stay together which otherwise would fall to pieces, given the availability of somewhere else to go.
Leaving aside the number of houses that are required, we must make better use of the houses that are currently available. At April 1997, there were 767,000 empty homes in Britain, most of them in the private sector. Of that total, 81,000 were local authority homes, a large proportion being controlled by the Labour party, which must look to its own front gardens before it does anything else. There were 27,000 empty housing association homes and 19,000 empty homes belonging to other public sector bodies, mainly health authorities and the armed services.
Most of that accommodation—767,000 homes—is usable. The previous Government produced targets to reduce that total stock of usable empty housing by 3 per cent. per annum. I challenge the new Government, who are so proud of what they are doing in areas such as housing, to better the previous Government's targets. If they believe that they can do that, let us see them doing it. For example, what about 5 per cent? Perhaps they might start with some of their socialist friends. For example, my Labour-controlled local authority in Swindon has a significant number of empty homes. It is important that the Government look first to their own laurels.
In that context, is it not extraordinary that in Newcastle recently permission was given for 2,500 new houses to be built on green-field sites despite the fact that in the centre of the city 4,000 lettable properties were empty? Why do we not fill empty lettable properties in Newcastle first before we give planning permission for 2,500 homes to be built on the green belt surrounding the city?
1428
Making better use of existing stock will not happen by chance. We can force local authorities, housing associations and private owners to make better use of existing stock only if we restrict the availability of new stock. If developers are constantly providing new stock in addition to the nation's current stock of housing, people will go to live in the new stock. If we say to developers, Look, you have a choice; you can either build on a green-field site or in the inner city", they will build on green-field sites. After all, it is so much cheaper and the homes will sell so much better.
People want—wrongly, I think—to live in suburban Britain on a green-field site. The only way in which we shall persuade developers to redevelop inner cities is physically to restrict the amount of green-field land that is available to them. As long as that land is available to them, they will use it. We must find ways of restricting much more heavily the use of green-field land that surrounds our cities.
In my constituency, there is a proposal—it has been put up by the socialist local authority in Swindon—for 17,500 new houses to be built on the land between Swindon and Wootton Bassett. However, the centre of Swindon—an old railway town—is entirely run down and a huge amount of redevelopment is necessary. People will go into the centre of the town if we say that the rural buffer zone that currently surrounds Swindon is as powerful as the green belt would be and developers may not build within it. I welcome the Government's response to rural buffer zones and other local designations. It would seem that the Government may move towards giving such zones and designations the same power in law as green belt land.
I issue a word of caution on brown-field land. It seems that there is a slight pre-supposition that all brown-field sites may be built upon. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) mentioned Ministry of Defence sites, and in my constituency I have several redundant Royal Air Force and Army sites. It would be wrong to build houses on those sites because they are green-field sites. They are in the middle of the countryside and there is no infrastructure attached to them. There are no shops, pubs, schools or roads. There is no nothing. They are, to all intents and purposes, green-field sites. The fact that they were used for something else should not be a presumption that they should be built upon.
The Government have not responded to the points made in the Select Committee's report about villages. At risk of being called a NIMBY, I shall refer to my village of Slaughterford in Wiltshire. It is a tiny hamlet within which there are 30 residents. It is proposed to build 14 executive-style homes in the village.
Mr. Caborn: It is amazing how we all live in these places.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman says that from a sedentary position. It is indeed amazing how we all live in these places, and I am delighted that I live in one. The Minister must come to visit me at Slaughterford. I shall try to lay on the best hospitality that I can when he does so. If the Minister comes to Slaughterford he will find a hamlet which has been untouched for 100 years. There are 30 people living in it. However, there is a proposal to build 14 executive-style homes at a cost of £600,000 each on a disused mill site in the village. Slaughterford has no

1429
roads save two miles of single track needed to get there. There is no public transport and there is no school, no pub and no shop. There is nothing at all. There are a few tiny properties and there is the proposal to build the new houses on the mill site.
The developers are using the Government's response to the Select Committee and their talk about brown-field sites as a possible excuse to build the new homes. I say that villages should be built on only when local people have the need of somewhere to live. I think particularly of the children of agricultural workers, who need to stay in the villages. They are local people and they need to live locally. That is fine. Let us have a little bit of infill. Against that background, £600,000-worth of executive-style homes in a remote Wiltshire hamlet ain't what the Government should be encouraging.
Other than that, I wholly endorse most of what the Government have said about their preference for brown-field sites. However, like most of my hon. Friends, I regret that the Government have been so timid in going for 60 per cent. They should have endorsed our target of 66 per cent. if possible. I have slight worries about how genuine the Government are being in their preference for brown-field sites. They give lip service in favour of these sites, but, at the same time, they allow building in Stevenage, West Sussex and Newcastle, and who knows where else. The decision to build 17,000 houses round Swindon will be an interesting touchstone for the Government's attitude towards new housing in country areas.
It seems that the Government have the right ideas. The report says that they probably have the right ideas—vague but nevertheless the right ideas. In the immortal words of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), they need to sharpen up their act and save our countryside from the bulldozer.
5.37 pm
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thoroughly enjoyed the contribution by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears). Many of her comments apply almost equally to my constituency although perhaps to a lesser degree.
I welcome the Select Committee's report. The conclusions and recommendations are much in line with my own thinking. The statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the White Paper, which was produced earlier this year, are also to be welcomed, particularly the commitment to a 60 per cent. brown-field and 40 per cent. green-field future for housing land allocation. My anxiety is about how that policy is to be implemented. I am therefore pleased to note the recommendation in the Select Committee's report, which goes a long way to addressing the dilemma. I refer to the Select Committee's comment at the end of paragraph 245 on page xvii, which reads:
"We strongly agree with those witnesses who argued that there must be a restriction on the amount of greenfield land available for development if developers are ever to make full use of the brownfield land available."
I could not agree more.
The Bradford unitary development plan, like others, makes far too much green-field land available. In a beautiful part of the Aire valley near Silsden in my
1430
constituency, it could allow 1,500 additional houses in green belt. The development would almost double the size of that mainly Victorian industrial village, remove for ever its character, urbanise yet further that green and pleasant part of our Aire valley, and leave schools, roads and other facilities unable to cope without massive injections of public money. The Silsden town action group, with support from me and the parish council, will oppose any detailed planning applications as they arise.
I want to touch on two other green-field sites in my constituency's part of Bradford's UDP. Manor Garth, which has always been regarded as common land in Addingham in the Wharfe valley, was designated in the UDP as village green space. Unfortunately, the owners saw a sizeable profit coming their way if it was zoned for housing. They appealed, and the Department's inspector under the previous Government agreed that their land should be available for housing. In the teeth of opposition from the parish council, the civic society, the local authority and me, there is a strong possibility that eventually, this much cherished field, which allows views of some interesting ancient buildings, will be lost for ever.
An almost identical situation prevails at Leeming, a hamlet close to the village of Oxenhope. Again, the landowner, on appeal to the inspector, was able to change a field from village green space to housing land and, at a stroke, enhance the potential size of his bank balance. I and Oxenhope village action group, the parish council and local councillors oppose any development on the site.
The UDP review is starting to roll again. I hope that my constituents will take a much more careful and critical view of it than they and their councillors took four and a half years ago. I also hope that the next plan will be under the guidance of the Department, which will be implementing the recommendations of the Select Committee report.
To show that all is not doom and gloom in my constituency on the planning and housing front, I shall mention a few minor triumphs. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing visited us during the recess and saw two schemes funded by the single regeneration budget. The one in Keighley town centre is now complete, with family homes available at affordable rents. The other is at Oakworth road, where Hillworth lodge, the old and much detested workhouse, will be converted and enhanced to form a mixture of maisonettes and houses for older people and families. Plans to create a living-over-the-shop scheme of apartments in the town centre are being explored. I hope that they will eventually take shape. Those schemes will help regenerate and enhance Keighley town centre and the quality of life of those living there. Unlike the three green-field developments that I mentioned earlier, they are made up of homes that local people on low incomes will be able to afford.
Many brown-field sites and unused buildings could be used for housing if there were incentives for developers to consider them instead of the rich pickings of green-field sites. Keighley has many former mills standing derelict, and there are the unused warehouses on the Leeds-Liverpool canal, which British Waterways is anxious to offload.
Nearer the centre of Bradford, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), lie the historic Lister's Manningham mills,

1431
where once the finest velvets were manufactured. The Victoria and Albert museum had thought of moving its south-east Asia collection there, which would have been welcomed by the local community, but, alas, that will not happen. What better way to use the building than to create hundreds of well-designed flats at affordable rents? Such a development has taken place at Saltaire in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) in the old mending and burling shed of Salts mill, alongside imaginative conversions of other parts of Salts to health authority offices, a Hockney art gallery and various attractive shops. It is a well-thought out conversion and use of what was becoming another derelict mill.
There is so much that can be done to provide homes without losing vast areas of our countryside. Our Government are moving in the right direction. Where there is a political will, a practical way can usually be found. The report points us in the direction of that practical way. I congratulate the Committee on its thorough work and excellent ideas.
5.44 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: The Committee has produced a report and made recommendations that ontribute significantly to the housing debate, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss them.
In Hampshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), and, perhaps, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) know, we are facing a nightmare scenario. According to regional planning guidance, we are threatened with 56,000 houses. More than 25 per cent.—15,000—are destined for Basingstoke. Borough officials tell me that 76 per cent. of those must be built on green-field sites because of the lack of brown-field sites in the town of Basingstoke.
There was an interesting variation of view between my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I agree that 4.4 million may be the best estimate. I, too, have spent some time studying the various statistics that make up that estimate. I, too, find puzzling points which I shall tell the House about and ask my hon. Friends to contemplate. One is that in the period considered, there is a phenomenal anticipated increase in the number of European Union citizens working in the United Kingdom. The figure rises to 850,000, which means that we will have immigration not equalled even at the height of West Indian immigration in the 1950s and 1960s. However, the estimate does not take into account UK citizens who go to work in other EU countries.
Another puzzling feature is the extraordinary slow-down assumed in the number of cohabiting non-married couples. We know from the census that in the 10 years before 1991, cohabiting unmarried couples increased from 2.9 to 6.4 per cent. of households, more than double, but for the 15 years covered by this estimate, the increase is only 0.3 per cent. It is very puzzling to think what social reason will lead to that extraordinary change. In those two respects, I believe that the estimate is likely to be suspect.
There is common ground on at least one aspect in this debate: priority must given to brown-field site development and urban regeneration. I regret that the
1432
hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is not in his seat. He and I seldom agree. This time we do, and I regret that he is not at hand to share the moment. His evidence to the Committee was telling and was closely reflected in the speech by the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears). His testimony laid great emphasis on the urban dereliction in his constituency and he wrote of the imperative of creating penalties to deter green-field development and incentives to promote inner-city development.
I take seriously the warning by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire about green-field tax, but I believe that the Government should look positively on incentives to make inner cities habitable again. For that reason, I share the Committee's concern that Lord Rogers's task force should not be used as a means of causing delay. As the House-Builders Federation advocated in a helpful note that I received this morning, measures should be introduced long before we see Lord Rogers's report next year.
I regret that to date the Government have gone for a rather miserly proposed target of 60 per cent. of development taking place on brown-field sites, to be achieved over 10 years. I welcome the Committee's recommendations that the target should be at least 60 per cent., and should be applied during the coming round of regional planning guidance rather than over 10 years.
I noted with interest that the Committee said that there would be regional variations, and that in some regions brown-field development could be close to 100 per cent. but that in all regions it should be at least 40 per cent. If that became Government policy it would be good news for the people of north Hampshire. If borough officials are right in saying that brown-field sites to accommodate even 40 per cent. of the proposed development cannot be found, such a target would require either a significant lowering of the county's requirement for new housing, or a fundamental redistribution of new housing within the county. I suspect that even with that, 40 per cent. could not be achieved. The county council is right to urge the Government not to force the 56,000 houses on us but to look for a lower figure; 42,000, which is itself a considerable number, is the target it advocates.
I share the Committee's conclusion that most new homes should be built in suitable urban areas, that brown-field sites or converted buildings should be used, and that the provision of green-field sites for development must be severely restricted.
I shall throw out a word of caution about edge-of-town development. There are two dangers associated with it. West of Basingstoke there is an outline proposal to build 5,000 or so houses, and the provisional plans show an uneconomic use of land. It is imperative that if we go in for significant amounts of edge-of-town development, the land must be used economically. The example of Poundbury, with an accommodation density of 15 or 20 units per acre, shows that it is not necessary for excessive quantities of land to be used. That should be borne in mind when edge-of-town development is being considered.
The second danger associated with edge-of-town development is that people may be encouraged to think that it will not generate traffic. That is not so, and it will not be so in the north of Hampshire, in the greater M4—Thames corridor.

1433
We have high employment, at least at the moment, and a highly skilled work force. High employment encourages job mobility, and people are prepared to drive 30 or even 50 miles to their places of work. If the current plans proceed, and about 15,000 houses are built around Basingstoke, it will be wrong to imagine that most of the people living in them will necessarily work in the town of Basingstoke. Traffic will be generated as they travel to their employment in various parts of the greater area.
I welcome the fact that the report has raised these issues, and I hope that the Government will reflect the Committee's recommendations in their policy decisions. I also hope that their wider response on housing and planning will extend to reversing damaging decisions that have already been made and giving unqualified protection to the green belt, and that they will commit themselves to a target of at least 60 per cent. for brown-field development.
5.54 pm
Mr. Graham Stringer: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have been called in this debate as well as in the previous debate on the future of the countryside. What characterised both debates, and the considerations of the Select Committee, was an increasing consensus among the political parties, the professionals giving evidence to the Committee, and even the Government in their response to the report, that the future protection of the countryside is intimately related to the protection of cities and towns. Urban renaissance depends on keeping the countryside as the countryside.
My only quibble with my right hon. and hon. Friends in government is over the speed at which things should happen. I know the north-west better than the areas that Opposition Members have talked about, so I shall use it as my example. At a stroke—I hate using that phrase, because of its political pedigree—one could, by announcing that there would be no future housing developments on green-field sites, give Manchester, Liverpool and the other towns in the north-west the biggest boost imaginable.
There is an alternative to an urban renaissance, and it is the urban dark ages. The future of our cities is on the cusp, on the edge, and immediate action is needed to make the developers who have invested their money in turnip fields and grass in the areas around our cities dedicate that money, and their creative resources, to the cities.
Fields are bought up by the big housing developers as land banks for programmes that will go on for 30 years. While those resources are tied up in the countryside, the developers are not bringing their ingenuity and their contributions into the cities. Eventually, if they are allowed to concrete over the countryside, they will severely damage it. We want what people who watch American football call a "hurry up" offence.
I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears). My constituency is in almost exactly the same socio-economic category as Salford, and I would like to deal in detail with the mechanisms that lead to the problems in the terraced streets. If we understand those mechanisms, some solutions can be applied fairly quickly.
One of the housing facilities in my constituency is not voluntary; it is called Strangeways. It is possible for somebody to come out of Strangeways, collect his money
1434
and set up as a private landlord. He will buy a house in a terraced street and get somebody—preferably, from his point of view, an undesirable neighbour—to rent it.
The landlord will get a capital return on the house within two or three years, sometimes less. If he puts his anti-social friends in, he can drive property prices down so that eventually nobody wants to live on either side of the whole of a terraced street. Such people can drive the prices of houses that cost £30,000 or £35,000 in the late 1980s down to £3,000 or £4,000. They then buy up the street. Nobody wants to live there, but housing benefit pays for the people who do live there. The local authority then has the problem of compulsorily purchasing the houses at values three or four years out of date.
There must be a solution that stops public money being used to destroy parts of our inner cities. I do not believe that any other service comparable to the private rented sector is so completely deregulated. People can come out of prison and do what I have described. They are providing a service, and there is no recourse for tenants apart from the courts.
We need a body like the one that oversees housing associations to regulate landlords and stop undesirables, as we do with publicans. To sell us a pint of beer somebody has to be of good character, but anybody can make people's lives miserable by becoming a private landlord. We need regulation and bodies for people to go to that will stop all that.
I do not want to pretend that all private landlords are bad; they are not. However, there are some operating in my constituency and other constituencies in Manchester and Salford, such as Madina, who make real efforts to drive house prices down.
Adjacent to terraced houses in my constituency—which are becoming increasingly difficult to let and which need Government action—there are council houses which are also difficult to let for similar reasons. Manchester city council is considering a proposal to knock down an estate where, only three or four years ago, families were living happily, and some families had been there for 22 years, since the estate was built. What happened? About three years ago, a group of drug dealers got on to the estate, and all who could move out did so. The local authority is considering demolishing the whole lot. I hope that it reconsiders.
One of the reasons why the families moved out was that it took the local authority—which is good on these matters, and is better than many others—18 months to get the people out. There is no mandatory right for a local authority to get rid of the worst tenants, and we need a change in the law to provide that right. The proposals from the housing department in Manchester and from my colleagues when I was on the city council—to have provisional or probationary tenancies—have been unpopular in the housing world. We sponsored that idea for housing associations, and we want it for council tenants.
I never thought that I would stand up in this Chamber to ask for less security of tenure for council house tenants. However, in estates in my constituency and most other inner-city constituencies one will find that tenants want the security of having the ability to evict those people who make their lives miserable, either by selling drugs or by other forms of anti-social behaviour. We need to change the rules; that will make a big and immediate difference in the city.

1435
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and other hon. Members that cities are the future of this country. It will grow and thrive economically only if we make the cities work. If we neglect them, as we have done in the past, the whole economy and the whole of our society will fall into decline. We have to start, and there are things that we can do immediately. I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will take action as soon as possible.
6.1 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I was privileged to serve on the Committee and I pay tribute to the Chairman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), and other colleagues with whom I worked. This is an important report which I hope receives better coverage in the media. The report is about an absolutely crucial subject to all of us and, as many have commented, the view reached was largely bipartisan. I do not think that this is fundamentally a party political issue.
I wish to refer to some issues which, perhaps, were not greatly focused on in the report. The first is the rather crude macro-point that putting one third of all new housing and further economic concentration in the south-east is not acceptable in the long term. However, anyone who takes that view must accept that the market must be allowed to operate to some extent to make it more attractive for business to go elsewhere. Simply, if we restrict supply, house prices will rise, and that will have an economic impetus in terms of what companies do and where they locate. As the Committee Chairman pointed out, there is a lot of trying to have one's cake and eat it. Local authorities want economic development, but not the housing. The other side of that is that one must allow the market to operate if we are not to restrict supply.
I am in the camp that is somewhat sceptical about the numbers. We are talking about a long time ahead to be predicting. The figures are trend-based, and who is to say that trends will stay the same? There are many other areas of activity where trends have changed dramatically. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) referred to the growth in cohabiting and the assumptions of massive net immigration to this country. Some 80 per cent. of the growth is projected to be made up of single-person households. However, a recent important survey of young people showed that 84 per cent of 20-year-olds want to get married and have a normal family unit. If anything, they were reacting against some recent trends.
The Government are laying down the figures too much—it is all slightly "1984". It is convenient for bureaucrats and developers to have plenty of scope—say, five years forward—to organise. I believe that supply is, to an extent, creating demand. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) made that point in referring to the destruction of the value and usage of perfectly good traditional terraced houses.
I hope that we are not changing the buzz words from "predict and provide" to
"plan, manage and monitor". I welcome the White Paper, but I have seen nothing that amounts to a fundamental change. We are still playing the old game of "predict a number" 20 years forward. We will need more flexible management of the numbers if we are to fine-tune the system.
1436
I had a long conversation with the executive of Redland who is responsible for the company's derelict land. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of urban land for redevelopment. The company wants to sell the land, but there is a planning nightmare because it is still a zone for industrial usage. Many authorities do not have their structural plans in place, and there is a five-year agony in trying to get planning permission. The system needs a bomb under it. There is masses of such land and there are willing sellers. However, many of the inefficiencies of the planning process stand in the way of getting the land used.
In my constituency in West Sussex, we suffer from the green belt—it restricts building, as it were, in Surrey and tips it over the border into West Sussex. There is a pull-push between the two counties. One might suggest that, for larger cities in the south, the answer could be to extend the radius of the green belt from 35 miles to 80 miles. At present, we have had an explosion of far-distant dormitory rural suburbia—almost the worst possible result for the future.
Architecture is terribly important, and Poundbury has been cited. The report was critical of new settlements, but if one goes to Bath, one cannot criticise a "new settlement" which was built 200 years ago. How is it that, 200 years later, we are not capable of building a beautiful, substantial new city? Surely we must be able to do that. Design and architecture matters should not completely rule out new settlements.
In my part of the world, there is an extremely competent county council—both its civil servants and its political representatives—and I am extremely sceptical and concerned lest power move even further from the county councils and cities with which people identify to regional development agencies and Government regional offices.
I do not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister really intended to approve those extra houses for West Sussex. I believe that the Government office for the south-east took the decision because it was concerned that it would set a dangerous precedent for other counties. I suspect that the Deputy Prime Minister may not have been fully aware of all the implications when he gave his approval. I make a plea to the Government to try to find a face-saving way of reviewing the decision. The Government know that the courts rejected the judicial review on a matter of law concerning the Government's power, not on whether it was a good decision.
The report found six important territories contravening the decision. It rightly recommends that a detailed environmental sustainability appraisal
should be at he centre of planning policy before starting. West Sussex has been a pioneer of that, as we know. One has to have proper consideration, consultation and examination in public to support the structural plan, with full cross-examination. West Sussex was the only authority to do that.
The report calls on central Government to support local authorities and not to undermine them in restricting development on green-field sites. West Sussex has moved from 60 per cent. brown to 60 per cent. green, on the increase in the figures—an area that has already more than doubled its population in the past 25 years. Also, West Sussex has a huge water supply problem. In the summer, we have water rationing and water levels are sinking, with many lakes drying up. Long term, there is no evidence that we will have sufficient water.

1437
The report cites the bottom-up approach. As the Minister knows, 45,000 people in West Sussex have signed four or five petitions—people of all political parties. Is not that approach in line with getting the in-depth views of the community?
Finally, on travel, what is known as the Cinderella line runs down to Arundel, and long may it so remain as it has preserved the southern half of West Sussex from being a commuter area. Only in the east of the area do we have such a travel facility.
Let us forget the party politics. I ask the Government to find a discreet way to review the decision. We do not want pious words and good intentions. Let us really try to make it happen.
The report highlights six key issues. As the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, there is an urgent need for intermediate Government guidance on the redemption of contaminated land. I happen to know of some land in Somerset that was banned because it was contaminated, even though the metal found was in fact from the Stone age.
Another issue is the importance of getting a move on and implementing the 60 per cent. target now rather than over 10 years. Let us copy the French and get a move on to redefine conversions for value added tax. It cannot be that difficult. Let us also allow local authorities' structural plans to restrict migrants. Finally, there is no need to be in a hurry ahead of Lord Rogers' report. Those are the key issues on which we should get a move on, and they have cross-party support.
6.11 pm
Mr. Vernon Coaker: We are discussing one of the most crucial issues to confront Members of Parliament. I feel sorry for the Minister in some ways when I consider what we are trying to do. We have to regenerate our cities and stop the degeneration that is taking place. We must protect our green fields and countryside. However, at the same time we must meet housing need. Looked at in that way, it is a challenging task.
Alongside that task, policies on transport, crime prevention, public service provision, the environment in general and employment must be developed. That is the nature of the task and without such associated policies the urban regeneration that we want simply will not take place. It cannot take place in a vacuum—the Select Committee Report, which is good, made that important point.
The report builds on the guidelines in the Government's paper, "Planning for the Communities of the Future", recognising that new policies are necessary. The Government recently published their response to the Select Committee report, which demonstrates that they are not static, but are responding to the arguments with fresh thinking and a willingness to move forward. The new policies, when fully in place, will represent a truly radical change in planning—I think of that famous phrase, "joined-up policies"—and will be a tribute to the Government.
However, as the Minister knows, the transition from one set of planning policies to another is the problem and it is causing many of us to receive a significant number of letters in our post bags. The Minister knows
1438
Nottinghamshire well and I thank him for coming there to talk to local authorities and Members of Parliament about our problems. Our structure plan dates back to 1996 and was agreed according to the policies of the past. Having been allocated housing figures, the districts are busy identifying land to meet them.
Gedling borough council is running a public consultation exercise to explain the process, but people in such areas as New Farm and Stockings Farm in Redhill are concerned that inappropriate development on green-field sites will take place despite the changed approach reflected in the Select Committee report and the Government's new policies. My constituents often tell me that they hear that policies have changed nationally, but that the change is not having the impact that they want locally. In fact, some of the old policies and guidelines are still being used, which makes little sense to them—or sometimes to me, either.
The Minister has responded to such concern by telling Nottinghamshire local authorities that they can reallocate some of the housing between themselves if they can reach agreement; I thank him for doing so. However, it is difficult for them because the new policies are not in place. For example, Nottingham city council wants to build new houses, reclaim derelict land, convert offices and old factories to housing, use space above shops and so forth, as I am sure councils in Manchester, Glasgow and all our other cities wish to do. Under the existing financial regime, that is difficult. There must be changes in taxation so that we can regenerate Nottingham and our other cities and, at the same time, protect green-field sites where appropriate. Furthermore, in Nottinghamshire the changes that we need in taxation and grant policies have a bearing on some of the old coalfield and industrial areas. Without the changes, 4.4 million five-bedroom houses will be built to meet the need for 4.4 million households; and houses that would meet people's needs in city areas will not be built.
The Select Committee report draws attention, at page 83—it is actually written in roman numerals and I had to look it up to ensure that I did not make an idiot of myself—paragraph 278 to the fact that the Department has always wanted to ensure
"that sufficient land is available at all times at the expense of so many of its other policies, for example on sustainable development, transport, the environment and the use of recycled land."
The Select Committee and the Government are saying that we need a phased release of land to ensure that an adequate amount of brown-field and, where appropriate, green-field land is available. Sequential planning is crucial to ensure that the brown-field sites are developed first and that developers do not take the easy option of using green-field sites—that is what they will do if we leave it to them.
The central problem, particularly in Gedling and in Nottinghamshire in general, is speed, which is of the essence. While I understand the difficulties of moving from one set of policies to another, we are in the transitional phase and the old policies seem to be grinding on. Paragraph 270 of the Select Committee report states:
"There is no need to hurry into granting planning permission for greenfield development before Lord Rogers' Task Force has reported on the scope for using recycled land before PPG3 and PPG13 have been revised and before the implications of the Integrated Transport White Paper are taken into account."
All those matters are crucial if we are to meet our policy objectives.

1439
I know that the Minister is doing all he can and that he is aware of the problems. Our policies are changing and moving forward. As I said, we must ensure that all the joined-up policies are working together. In some ways, it does not matter who is in government—this is a difficult issue. However, we have a new Government bringing in new thinking and new policies to meet the challenge. If that challenge is met, our cities will be regenerated, our green-field sites will be protected, and there will have been a truly radical change on which the Government can look back with pride.
6.19 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I do not want to rehearse what has been said, but I shall add one or two points. The report is extremely valuable and the debate is timely. The question is not so much the number of new homes—we have yet to find out how far future trends will be a reflection of the past—as what, in planning terms, a bottom-up approach means in practice.
On the old predict-and-provide approach, there would be 71,000 additional commitments in Cambridgeshire, but only 25 to 30 per cent. of that number can be provided by using recycled land and windfall opportunities. If the minimum commitment is 40 per cent., we shall not, on the example of Cambridgeshire, be able to build 4.4 million new homes.
On the bottom-up approach, South Cambridgeshire district council rightly responded to the draft regional planning guidance by undertaking an environmental capacity study, which considered those matters mentioned in the report—environmental sustainability, transport infrastructure, water resources and the infrastructure of public services. It makes little sense to propose, over the 20 years from 1995, a 40 per cent. increase in the number of new homes in a district that is already the fastest growing in the country. A bottom-up approach is not only about who makes the decisions, although that is important, but about the method by which one arrives at the numbers and decides where the new houses should be built.
Even if there were nil growth in the area and no net migration, the affordable housing proposals would give rise to 13,000 extra commitments. If we constrain supply, we must find a more consistent way in which to sustain affordable housing so that local people are not driven out. What is the point of social housing if not to reinforce people's opportunities to stay in their familiar community structures?
I am unhappy at the thought that the green belt should be pushed further out to prevent the creation of dormitory communities. In my area, the green belt exists not only to protect the rural villages outside Cambridge; it protects the city itself. If the green belt is pushed out as a result of new building on its inner edge, the historic city centre will be destroyed. The Committee's recommendation that we should focus on building in urban areas does not always apply. For example, Cambridge's historic characteristics would be destroyed if we were to allow urban sprawl or excessive urban density.
We must consider other mechanisms, which will vary from place to place. In Cambridgeshire and parts of East Anglia, we may have to look constructively at the role of market towns. Where development is proposed, we shall have to consider the public transport options.
1440
I am concerned about the decision-making mechanisms, despite the Government's talk about decentralisation and taking decisions closer to the people. The draft regional planning guidance from the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities will be put forward for public examination in February—it will be the first such public examination. However, as we shall not have the new draft PPG3—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—what is the point of the public examination? How can we know how the new tests are to be applied?
I do not agree with everything in SCEALA's draft guidance, but it is better that such documents should be agreed by locally elected representatives than be comprehensively second-guessed by independent panels. We may know who is on the panel, but what is the rationale behind having a panel that overturns the decisions of locally elected representatives only to hand back its structure plan to the county council that did not subscribe to it in the first place?
We must apply the bottom-up approach to ensure that local democracy generates the answers and that factors other than predict and provide are taken into account. We must take on board all the integral factors to find out how many new homes can be accommodated without destroying the environment of the area for which the planning was intended to provide a solution.
6.25 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I fail to recognise the green-crusader credentials of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). I remember desperately attempting, as a local authority leader during most of the time in which the Conservatives were in government, to combat out-of-town shopping developments, only to find that the then Secretary of State for the Environment was giving out planning permission like confetti, with the results that we see today. I hope that the Conservative party has changed its tune, but I fear that, in the long term, it has not.
I also failed to recognise Conservative Members' descriptions of the report as an attack on the Government. The report strongly supports much of what the Government are doing. Indeed, I was delighted at the Government's response, which endorsed and took further much of what the Committee said.
The projection of 4.4 million extra households between 1991–2016 is robust. As the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) confirmed, members of the Committee looked up to the figures—they may not be entirely accurate and there may have to be changes, but, essentially, we believe that they are robust. When the Government said that they wanted to end predict and provide, the response from some quarters was that the 4.4 million figure was no longer important and that people could do their own thing regardless of any overall effect on housing need. That response was misplaced.
Our understanding of how the figures work has changed—for example, we know that windfall sites are much more important than was thought. Nevertheless, it is important that figures on future housing need retain some shape; if they do not, we shall all live to regret it.
The 4.4 million houses should, ideally, be built on brown-field land—the Government's target is that 60 per cent. should be built on recycled land. In the early 1990s,

1441
30 per cent. of completions on brown-field sites were outside urban areas, so we must be wary of the figures—brown field is not simply, as the Government know, an alternative to green field. We should add another dimension to the concept and specify that the brown field is urban—we should be looking at brown field sites in urban areas. As we have heard, there is a case for different targets in different parts of the country.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Whitehead: I am sorry, but, because of the lack of time, I will not give way.
What do we mean by urban? A local authority boundary does not determine what is urban. The real footprint of a city is often outside its local authority boundaries. Local authorities must collaborate in deciding how housing should be placed in urban areas. People cannot point to a city centre and say that that local authority should build all the houses. It needs collaboration between authorities and I regret that, in certain parts of the country, that collaboration on decision making does not seem to be present.
On social housing, our report mentions our concern that there appears to be a considerable gap between likely provision and likely need. I am disappointed by the Government's response to the issue of social housing. We shall not be able to build new social housing by relying only on the private sector and private letting, or by relying on planning gain or local authorities overwhelmingly putting money into keeping their housing stock going—important though that is. We need more social housing to be built and we need an accurate understanding of the figures in order to understand how the Housing Corporation can be funded and how local authorities can respond.
I know that the Government are currently reworking the research figures. I ask them to ensure that those figures are produced shortly so that we have an accurate fix on what we need for social housing. It needs to be dealt with urgently. If we get the figures wrong, the people involved cannot just go somewhere else in the market; they will have nowhere to live. We all have a responsibility to get that part of the equation right, together with all the other parts.
6.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Even if the Select Committee regarded the Government's paper as being somewhat vague, nobody could accuse the Committee of having produced a vague report. I believe that both sides of the House feel that the Committee has produced a comprehensive and interesting report with a number of thought-provoking ideas.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), I am extremely concerned about the implications for Hampshire of the dispute between the county's view, which proposes 42,000 houses as the requirement to meet the county's domestic need, and the belief of the unitary authorities in Portsmouth and Southampton that 56,000 houses, as proposed by the Government, are necessary to meet the needs of incomers as well as the county's domestic requirements. I understand that there is to be a meeting with the Secretary
1442
of State next week. I hope that he will be able to resolve the matter so that we can get on with it. It is clear that it would be much better for Hampshire if any proposed new planning policies could be introduced quickly. If they are not, the loss of green-field sites will continue and the resulting chaos will be regretted in the rural areas of Hampshire that are currently under threat. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
The report talks about the concept of environmental capacity. I understand that the Government are reasonably receptive to that concept, but there is no real guidance on what that means and how it can be applied. We have to consider whether we can regard an area as being full up. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) mentioned the pressures in her area. All of us in the south-east are subject to enormous pressure. There will come a time when we have to decide whether an area is full up.
The recent experience of West Sussex is not very inspiring in that respect. The county council lost its judicial review in the High Court because the Secretary of State has discretionary powers. Although the county council had prepared an environmental capacity study, the Secretary of State said that it was flawed. How do we know that it was flawed? The county also claimed that further housing growth would seriously jeopardise its rural environment, and designated areas received much sympathy from the presiding judge. However, he held that the law was on the side of the Secretary of State and that he could do nothing to help. The county has had to appeal to the House of Lords.
The time has come when we have to decide that an area is full and that its services and environment cannot take any further expansion. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that this is a case where the market really can apply. If prices rise to a sufficient level, people will be forced to go elsewhere. That will be of benefit to other parts of the country, that are looking for economic and social development, which will not happen if we continue to concrete over the whole of the south-east and those areas that are currently under pressure. If that were to happen, the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer)—he made some interesting comments about the inner cities—would be met as well. The inner cities would become much more attractive because the developers would not be able to place their money anywhere else and the cities would become somewhere to invest and make a useful return.
That brings me to an important point that the Committee made in paragraph 246. It said that local authorities
"should also adopt a helpful and imaginative approach to proposals for urban developments, particularly in respect of their density, layout and the number of car parking spaces they require."
I endorse that strongly. Rushmoor borough council in Aldershot has done a tremendous job and put that into practice already. A big site by the railway station could have been used for a supermarket, but, instead, 200 flats and houses were built there. The number of car parks allocated for those units was half that applied elsewhere. That is one practical suggestion from the Committee that is being put into practice and which should be put into practice elsewhere in the country.
6.36 pm
Mr. David Drew: Given the shortage of time, I shall be brief. I congratulate the Select Committee on taking on such a challenging topic and producing such a comprehensive report. Despite what the Opposition spokesman said, I believe that the Government produced a full response, which follows on from the White Paper by explaining how Government policy will take things forward.
I want to talk about housing numbers. Some of us on the Labour Benches continue to challenge the numbers, but we realise that there are problems in so doing. We would like to see the Government's proposal for a six-stage scheme as an alternative to the trend-based forecast put into play as soon as possible. It gives an alternative a chance and gives people who want to see bottom-up planning some confidence that alternatives can be put in place.
There are some people who believe that circular projections—the self-fulfilling prophesy that people will move into the houses that are being built—cannot be tracked nationally, but they can operate locally. I support the emphasis on a regional approach. We have not yet seen the competence of real regional emphasis. There will be a need to provide proper guidance and the proper level of support for that to operate effectively.
The Select Committee report makes much of the difference of opinion between those who see the problem as being one of too much housing land and those who think that there is too little. That is simply due to a dysfunction in the provision of housing. We cannot pretend that there is much in common between the market for housing and the provision of affordable and, more particularly, social housing. We must face up to those problems. They are not two sides of the same problem.
I now want to deal with phasing sequential planning and brown-field development. I urge the Government to be a little braver. Rather than saying that they are just looking at the ending of a five-year land supply, they should accept that there are considerable merits in protecting green-field sites and forcing the sequential principle forward.
There is much that we can do to look at alternative places to build in rural Britain. The "Planning and Affordable Housing" document does not get much publicity, but I am pleased to see it. It ends the threshold, which means that in small village communities, social housing can be provided as part of the overall number of houses. We no longer have to have a minimum of 20 or 25 houses before insisting on a developer taking some interest.
Economic measures are important. The proposal for a green-field levy is worth investigating and testing properly and I was interested to note that a report by the Civic Trust suggested that the concept had merit. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, hypothecation could allow urban regeneration and, at the same time, we could deal with council tax anomalies, not least of which is the second home problem. Although Members of Parliament gain from the current position, it has an appalling effect on many rural areas. We have had a good debate and the issues have been well aired. The report is timely and I commend the Government on their response to it.
6.40 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is my neighbour in Gloucestershire. I endorse his comments about predictions of the number of houses that will be required, because I also have doubts about them. Trends change, including the divorce rate, the number of people living alone, the age at which young people leave home and other factors affecting mobility, which makes the figure questionable to say the least.
To address the need for houses is to ignore the need to protect the countryside. I am as aware as anybody of the need to provide homes for people, because, before I entered the House, I carried out a large project for the homeless. They were homeless not because they could not find homes to buy, but for other social reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, if we continue to build at the current rate, the countryside will fill up. When that happens, will we then try to provide homes in a more sustainable manner? If so, why not address the problem now?
The word "sustainability" is over-used and under-obeyed, but the Government should interpret it to mean providing for the needs of today's generation without prejudicing or compromising the needs of future generations. To protect future generations, we must take a radical approach now and not merely pay lip service to sustainability. Destroying the countryside—and creating increased traffic and social problems—while ignoring the needs of inner cities and town centres, is not sustainable.
The pressure to build more and more houses causes many problems in Tewkesbury, which has been forced to accommodate far more than its fair share of housing recently. That has led to the destruction of several attractive villages. Part of the reason is the difficulty that some districts have in providing brown-field sites. Pressure to build in Tewkesbury has led to land that had been declared unsuitable being reconsidered. For example, people's allotments and green-field sites have been built on, and other land, which if built on would lead to villages coalescing, is now being considered for the same fate. I endorse the comments made by the Council for the Protection of Rural England that the local environment must be taken into account when building in rural areas. Sustainability means developing brown-field sites and derelict sites and empty and old buildings, not destroying the countryside and ruining lives.
I do not wish to be party political, but I believe that the Government's policy is inadequate. The Government adopted the previous Government's projected figure, but they did not need to do so. The Government have set up regional agencies without giving them the full responsibility to protect the environment and have also set a worryingly low target for building on brown-field sites. Regardless of party politics, the planning of the building of new houses needs a radical rethink if it is to be sustainable.
6.44 pm
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate members of the Select Committee on their useful and timely report. I am delighted that the Government are able to agree with many of the Committee's conclusions; that is reflected in our response to the report. I also

1445
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Chairman of the Committee. As the former Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, I know how difficult it can be to obtain unanimity—I say that from experience and with some bruises—but only unanimous reports carry real weight. This report is unanimous, and must be taken seriously.
The underlying message from the Committee is clear: we must face the fact that people must have an opportunity to live in decent homes. Not before time, we have a growing cross-party consensus on how to plan future house building in a sustainable way that drives the urban renaissance agenda. A clear consensus on that has emerged tonight.
It is not a matter of green-field versus brown-field sites, urban versus rural or country versus town. The Government's response makes it clear that we must rise above NIMBYism, although some hon. Members have tried to draw the drawbridge up tonight to protect their villages. The contribution by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for the official Opposition did not show much consensus, and there were a couple of other exceptions, but I hope that we can take the political opportunity to stop urban decay and the urban flight. If we can do so, we can solve many of the problems that have been highlighted tonight.
Mr. Flight: The rural flight.
Mr. Caborn: No, I mean the urban flight to rural areas. The hon. Gentleman should think about the situation.
The Government accept the key recommendation by the Select Committee, that we should publish an urban White Paper. We share the view that, by revitalising and regenerating our towns and cities, and creating an urban renaissance, we will take the pressure off the countryside and bridge the housing gap between the haves and the have-nots.
The household projection figures have been one of the main topics of discussion tonight. The Committee last looked at the issue in 1995–96, when it broadly accepted the methodology, and I welcome the fact that the confidence in it has been reaffirmed. I hope that we can put to bed for good the fruitless arguments about the figures. The Government have tried to be as helpful as possible about the next set of projections. The Committee recommended that
"the Government publish with the next national household projections an analysis which shows the effect of small changes in the assumptions underlying the projections."
In response, the Government state:
"The Department notes the recommendation and will publish suitable sensitivity analyses alongside the next set of household projections."
It is in everybody's interest to ensure that the figures are understood, and the analysis accepted.
I welcome the Committee's support for our national land recycling target of 60 per cent. I do not know where some hon. Members have been for the past 18 years, but if we hit 60 per cent., it will be 10 per cent. better than the Conservatives did in their 18 years. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has attacked us, although we have been in government for 18 months, but the analysis of brown-field utilisation that we shall publish in a few days' time will prove acceptable.
1446
We accept that there is more to be done. We intend that the regions should establish their own targets through regional planning guidance. I expect them to engage in that process with some urgency. I agree with much of what has been said. That problem will be resolved not in Whitehall, but in the regions and local towns.
The Government are trying to introduce innovatory ideas. The millennium village is on a contaminated site at Greenwich, and my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction tells me that that site received an award last night for the decontamination work done there. We are looking into the problems left at Allerton Bywater by the rundown of the mining industry. We are trying to increase the size of that village to give it some economy of scale. We want to resolve the problem without people having to move out. We are trying, in innovative ways, to bring brown fields back into use and to introduce better planning. We will genuinely try to hit the 60 per cent. target.
I welcome the Committee's support for our approach to the provision of regional housing. The regional planning conferences have an essential role to play. We intend to set out a timetable for production of regional planning guidance, and we expect the regions to stick to it and to produce responsible and realistic plans for accommodating housing requirements in their areas. There must be certainty. Everyone says that certainty is needed in the planning regime. Central to that certainty will be having everyone in the planning system adhering to the timetables that we shall evolve after consultation with the parties involved.
We are keen to maintain momentum towards decentralisation of power. As the Committee's report stresses, power comes with responsibility. We genuinely want to devolve powers to the regions so that we can have a bottom-up process. The same is true of local plans. We must respond to the challenges to the Government and to society.
Let me turn to the way forward. Our policy statement last February made it clear that our first choice for new development is that it should be on previously developed land, preferably in urban areas. That sequential approach is long overdue, and we want authorities to explore options fully before they propose urban extensions or the release of other green-field sites. That will be covered more extensively by the revised PPG3.
The Select Committee rightly posed more detailed questions about how we will deliver. Let me fill in some of the gaps. As our response to the Committee makes clear, we have embarked already on an extensive programme of policy initiatives, as set out in "Planning for the Communities of the Future" and "Modernising Planning".
The urban task force, under the guidance of Lord Rogers, is examining the difficulties of redeveloping our urban areas, which have been graphically described, particularly from my side of the House. The task force contains a broad range of expertise drawn from all the professions involved in the debate, from developers to environmentalists. We look forward to receiving Lord Rogers's report in the first half of next year, but he has made it clear this week that he will produce an interim report at the turn of the year.
Work on compiling the national land use database—the equivalent of a Domesday register for the 21st century—is already well under way. The initial results are due next

1447
March. It is gathering on-line data about every previously developed site in the country, and I assure the House that that is no mean feat. We will soon know how many previously developed sites there are, and we shall be able to keep that information up to date. Rather than speculate about the ability to reuse brown-field land, we shall shortly have factual information to inform our land recycling policy.
We have a full programme of revision for planning policy guidance. Our response to the Select Committee refers a number of times to the updating of the guidance note on housing, known as PPG3. We are grateful for the Committee's proposals on that document, and we shall factor them into our considerations. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) will be the first to have a public examination. I intend to produce PPG3 before that, hopefully by the turn of the year. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will appear at the public examination, and I will ensure that he has the revised PPG3 in his hands.
We are working on other planning guidance, such as the notes on transport, spatial planning and regional planning. We are also working on issues such as compulsory purchase and the use of economic instruments. We need a comprehensive approach, so that we can answer serious structural weaknesses in this part of society.
It has been made clear this evening that we need an holistic approach to urban housing policy. The problems will not be solved through the planning process alone. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was able to announce on Tuesday that the Government have accepted the Select Committee's recommendation to publish an urban White Paper. We expect to do so next year.
It is 20 years since there was an urban White Paper. My right hon. Friend remembers it well, because he was parliamentary private secretary to the then Secretary of State, Peter Shore—now Lord Shore—and he was deeply involved in that paper. Regrettably, the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s failed to advance many of the ideas that flowed from the White Paper.
Debates on Select Committee reports must be kept above party politics, but we have heard a little hypocrisy in the debate. Lord Tebbit used to say, "Get on your bike,
1448
come to the south-east and go to where the jobs are." People came, but now the Conservatives complain because we have to house them. Lord Tebbit has not spoken tonight, but he spoke volumes years ago, and we are grappling with the problems he left us. The overheating of the south-east arises from the type of economic policies pursued by previous Administrations.
The Labour Government have a new vision for a new set of urban issues. We seek thriving communities that provide jobs and provide homes that are attractive and pleasant to live in. We are determined to drive an urban renaissance. We are determined to turn our cities back into places where people want to work, live and play. The urban White Paper will link key strands of Government vision for an urban renaissance. It will embrace our programmes for education, employment, health, housing, the problem of social exclusion and transport. It will be the most comprehensive and far-sighted programme of urban renewal since our last White Paper in the 1970s.
It has always been Labour Governments who have addressed the real problems of land use planning. It is 50 years since a Labour Government put the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 on to the statute book. It was a Labour Government who introduced the national parks. It was a Labour Government who introduced the green belt. All that the previous Administration did was to take concrete mixers to build out-of-town shopping centres, and allow more development on green belt and green-field sites than any other Administration ever allowed.
I welcome the report.
6.57 pm
Mr. Bennett: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Traditionally, at the end of debates such as this, the Chairman of the Select Committee responds to fill up a bit of time. However, there is virtually no time left over, so I will just thank the Minister for his responses, both in writing and at the Dispatch Box.
I thank, too, all those who participated in the debate, particularly those hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee. Too often, debates on Select Committee reports involve the members of the Committee talking about their own report. It was refreshing to hear that so many other hon. Members had taken the trouble to read the report and to participate. I regret that there was not enough time to allow everyone to speak who wanted to.

European Structural Funds
[Relevant documents: Seventh report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1997–98, on Reform of European Structural Funds (HC 697), and the Government's response thereto of 11 September.]
6.59 pm
Mr. Roger Berry: It is a pleasure to open this debate on the Trade and Industry Select Committee's report on the reform of European structural funds. I do so only because my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who chairs the Committee, is unable to be present this evening. He asked me to convey his apologies to the House.
First, I wish to place on record the Committee's thanks to the Clerk and his colleagues, Professor lain Begg of South Bank university, who has provided us with expert assistance and lots of statistics, and all those who gave written or oral evidence. I am mindful of Madam Speaker's earlier request for brevity, and I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I shall confine my remarks to a few key issues in both the report and the Government's response.
It is important to see the current renegotiation of the structural funds in context. The funds are the principal instrument of EU regional policy whereby it seeks to reduce regional inequalities, or, as we tend now to say, to promote economic and social cohesion, which seems to me to be essentially the same thing. The current negotiations on the structural funds, the cohesion fund and, indeed, the Community initiatives, are part of the overhaul of EU finances that was initiated by the publication in July last year of Agenda 2000.
The most significant feature of the current discussions about the reform of the structural funds is that they are taking place in much more difficult circumstances than the negotiations on previous reforms. For example, the EU is facing a difficult economic environment, not least characterised by high levels of unemployment. It is embarking on enlargement to the east, with potential EU members being significantly less well off than current members, so more likely to need structural fund assistance.
There is a growing reluctance by net contributing states to continue contributions on the same scale, so there will be only modest increases in resources to promote economic and social cohesion—roughly rising in line with EU GDP. Yet, at the same time, there is a growing awareness of the availability of European funding, so there is increased demand. In the past, structural funds have increased substantially, both in scope and in scale, as the EU has evolved. That will no longer be the case. Therefore, the current re-evaluation of structural fund policy is no easy task, as I am sure the Minister will advise the House.
The Commission's most important proposals are of concern to all of us. The aims are to reduce the number of objectives from seven to three; to reduce Community initiatives from 14 to three; to concentrate funds by greater geographical targeting; in relation to objective 1, to apply the current criterion based on per capita GDP of below 75 per cent. of the European average, but without the existing flexibility; for regions facing major restructuring needs, to set a new objective 2, amalgamating current objectives 2 and 5b and incorporating a number of
1450
Community initiatives with particular account being taken of the unemployment rate as the key criterion; and finally, to ensure that the budget for structural and cohesion policies is maintained at the planned 1999 level of 0.46 per cent. of EU GNP.
Allowing for funds committed for enlargement, this will mean an increased spending in real terms of from about 28 billion euros per annum in the current planning period to about 30 billion in the next. There is an increase in real terms roughly in line with GDP, but not a substantial one. It is not like past increases, when we saw the renegotiation of European structural funds. The circumstances are therefore difficult.
Before we consider the Commission's proposals in more detail, we need to address a basic question, which the Committee considered: what is the value of the process whereby member states contribute to a common pool and then get either less or more from that pool, with strings attached by Brussels? That question needs to be asked, and the Committee sought to answer it. Obviously, it is a form of redistribution in the right direction—from rich to poor—and is to be welcomed warmly. It is an important function of the exercise. It is a practical expression of economic and social cohesion at European level. However, the greater the subsidiarity, the more the involvement of European mechanisms must be justified.
The Committee considered that issue in our report, and identified a number of reasons why European funding of this kind has conferred many benefits. As we discovered from travelling around the country listening to people involved in partnerships using European funding, it has led to the growth of many extremely productive partnerships at local level, such as between local authorities and the private and voluntary sectors, the benefits of which should not be underestimated.
Nevertheless, the Committee was impressed by the general indifference of those we met who seek and spend funds as to the source of funding. Whether we were in Merseyside, Stockport or Chorley, the cause of concern was not so much where the money came from as that there should be money available. We made that modest observation in our report.
The Government's response was perfectly fair, reminding us that they believe, rightly, that allocations should be redistributive, and that member states with lower per capita GNP should get more than those with higher per capita GNP. I wholly support that. Redistribution is an important political objective. But with respect, the response slightly side-stepped our point—that those involved in coming up with programmes, projects and schemes that confer enormous economic and social benefits on their communities, and those who have developed partnerships between the local authority and the private and voluntary sectors, often feel that what matters is not the source but the availability of funding. It would have been inaccurate of the Committee not to note that point.
Concentration is a key issue, and is identified at a number of levels. I have already said that the proposal is to concentrate on three rather than seven objectives, and on three rather than 14 Community initiatives. There is to be concentration on areas of priority assistance. There is to be geographical concentration, so that the eligible population in new objective 1 and new objective 2 areas should be reduced from 51 per cent. of the EU population

1451
to between 35 and 40 per cent. There is also a proposal for greater financial concentration, which effectively means giving greater priority to objective 1 regions.
The Committee's main concern, which I share, is the proposed increased geographical concentration. There is no obvious reason why increased geographical concentration is a good thing. If relative disadvantage or inequality happens to be widely spread in a spacial sense, there is a good reason to spread the resources to deal with it; so we on the Committee had some difficulty in understanding the emphasis on geographical concentration. Therefore, while we welcome more effective targeting of funds, we share the Government's concern that the current proposals would remove about 10 per cent. of EU citizens—37 million or 38 million people—from structural fund eligibility. We could find no justification for that.
The cohesion fund has taken on a life of its own. It will not be doing what it was intended to do. It was introduced following the Maastricht treaty to help the less prosperous member states with programmes designed to assist them to meet the convergence criteria for entry into economic and monetary union. Now, despite the fact that three of the four countries concerned—Ireland, Portugal and Spain—are to be in the first wave of EMU, having met the convergence criteria, it is proposed that the cohesion fund should continue for those countries for which it was originally set up. That is plainly absurd—probably the strongest expression that I am allowed to use in this Chamber.
The Committee shares the Government's view and that of a number of other member states that continuation of substantial funding from the cohesion fund for those joining the single currency simply cannot be reconciled with the original objectives of the fund. I look forward to the Minister advising the House what the Government, the House or anyone else can do about that extraordinary state of affairs.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Commission proposes that objective 1 will continue to assist regions where per capita GDP for the last three years for which figures are available is less than 75 per cent. of the EU average. Current objective 6 regions—those that are sparsely populated—will also be covered. It is proposed that objective 1 regions will continue to receive roughly two thirds of the funds.
The difference is that it is now suggested that no more than 20 per cent. of the EU population should be covered by objective 1, compared with about 25 per cent. at present, and that the previous flexibility around the 75 per cent. threshold should be eliminated. At the time of writing the report, the Committee understood that that was likely to mean that Merseyside would retain objective 1 status, that South Yorkshire would gain it, and that the highlands and islands and Northern Ireland would lose it, although we anticipated that the highlands and islands would regain it under the sparsity criteria hitherto used for objective 6, and that Northern Ireland would be regarded as a special case.
To eliminate the existing flexibility would in our view cause the United Kingdom particular difficulties. We are the fifth poorest member of the European Union in terms of per capita GDP, but we could lose because we do not
1452
have the regional inequalities that exist, for example, in Italy or Germany. This is not special pleading: it is an important matter of principle. The Committee's concern was that the Commission's proposals could penalise poorer countries that had been relatively successful in reducing regional inequalities. For poorer countries to be penalised for achieving greater economic and social cohesion simply does not make sense; nor does the rigid application of the 75 per cent. threshold.
There is no correct statistical methodology for defining the boundaries of EU regions, drawing a line at those with per capita GDP of 75 per cent. of the average, and saying that those below lag behind and those above do not. This is not a statistical exercise; it is a matter of judgment.
I am not talking about the margins of error in a statistical sense, although they exist. The point is that it is simply not possible to replace judgment with an arbitrary statistical device. Therefore, the Committee strongly supports the Government's view that flexibility around the 75 per cent. threshold should continue. In our view, the Government must continue strenuously to question the strange attachment that the European Commission seems to have here, as elsewhere, to rigid and arbitrary criteria. There must be flexibility—a grey zone, as we have referred to it—to give potential but not absolute eligibility to a small number of regions that are on the margin, so that judgment can be exercised rationally.
The Office of National Statistics data were published today. The separation of Cornwall from Devon as a level 2 area is warmly to be welcomed. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) is sitting here, so I have to refer to Cornwall. I was going to refer to the NUTS—nomenclature of territorial units for statistics—level 2 area, but perhaps sticking to level 2 is more appropriate. My hon. Friend the Minister will bring the House up to date, I know, but it looks as if Cornwall will obtain objective 1 status, as will the new west Wales and the valleys level 2 area. That is to be welcomed.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Although my constituency is not in the objective 1 designated area, it is fair to say that there is an enormous welcome throughout Wales for the prospect that a substantial chunk of Wales will for the first time get objective 1 status. However, there is a specific problem, which I think is unique to Wales.
After devolution, working within the Barnett formula, any additional matching funds for the objective 1 bit of Wales could have to be provided by the new Welsh Assembly. It will have to borrow from Peter—the areas outside the objective 1 area—to pay Paul, unless the Treasury agrees to provide additional funds as the matching funds for the new objective 1 area. Did that matter come within the Select Committee's purview?
Mr. Berry: We did not consider that matter. The Minister may wish to comment on it. If I hurry up and finish my comments, other hon. Members will be able to make similar points, perhaps at more length.
Whatever happiness there is about the ONS data published today and what we believe to be their implications for objective 1 status, I hope, and the Committee hopes, that the Government still feel strongly about flexibility around the 75 per cent. threshold. It is an important matter of principle.

1453
For new objective 2, the emphasis on unemployment as a principal measure of need is not unreasonable. Unemployment is perhaps the EU's greatest problem, so we welcome the emphasis on it. However, it makes no sense to rely exclusively on recent local unemployment rates. It is well known that member states do not exhibit identical economic cycles. That has a number of implications. One is that it is absurd to rely on a three-year snapshot of unemployment to determine fund distribution. The Select Committee is therefore of the view that objective 2 funding should be allocated broadly on the basis of per capita GDP, and that member states should have great freedom to identify the areas to be assisted.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Coalfield areas have gained substantially from European funding—£200 million a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be strange if the South Yorkshire coalfield got objective 1 status while north Nottinghamshire, which has the same conditions but just misses objective 1 perhaps on unemployment and GDP data, were excluded? Is that not an example of where flexibility ought to be applied?
Mr. Berry: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I shall come to the issue of boundaries.
One issue that local authorities, among others, raised with the Committee was the setting of boundaries for the new objective 2 areas. It is clearly important that areas most in need should receive the funding. The Minister told the Committee that the Government would be looking for an outcome on objective 2 where there would be
"the flexibility to delve down into areas of real need",
even if those areas were concealed in areas of relative prosperity.
In their response to the report, the Government warned that there were many hurdles to overcome, but said that they were committed to the principle of flexibility. Are the Government willing to continue to seek to have objective 2 areas defined below NUTS level 3—at least to ward level 5, if not below? I think that that takes on the point that my hon. Friend has just made.
There has been a broad welcome in principle for the Commission's proposal to reduce the number of community initiatives from the current 14 to three. It has been argued that many activities pursued under community initiatives could as easily be carried out under objective programmes. However, that can be done only in areas enjoying objective status. In Lancashire, the Committee was briefed on community initiative projects of real worth outside objective areas—the Royal Ordnance site at Chorley and a former cotton mill at Stockport spring to mind.
Moreover, the local authority associations were cautious about reducing the number of community initiatives. The Local Government Association sought the continuation of the urban initiative, which provides concentrated assistance to a few selected urban areas. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities supports the campaign for a fourth initiative, Restruct, which would bring together the current industrial change initiatives.
The Committee's view is that serious consideration should be given to the continuation in some form of the urban initiative and to the introduction of the proposed Restruct initiative. In light of the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations, may I press the
1454
Minister to tell the House how far the Government will back the Restruct initiative and seek transitional funding for urban projects just begun, which the Committee feels is important?
The Government's response agrees with almost all the Committee's conclusions and recommendations, which means that only limited disagreement is to be expected this evening. However, I have raised several issues that require further clarification from the Minister. Because of the time available, the list has not been exhaustive, but I am sure that other hon. Members will now add many more items to that list.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. A great many hon. Members are trying to catch my eye and it is already evident that, unless some self-restraint is exercised, many people will be disappointed.
7.21 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: The broad principles underlying the reforms are to be welcomed. They are, to some extent, overdue. The full implications of enlargement of the European Union, many of which have yet to be recognised, will certainly have concentrated minds, since to do nothing to the current rules relating to structural funding would certainly hugely increase budget contributions. In addition, inequities between certain member states and regions would be created, and tensions within the Union might be aggravated.
The provision of structural funds has clearly been of great importance to all member states, not least the United Kingdom. The funds provide a tangible benefit, and enable people to see how Europe is of assistance to them and how it works constructively for them. That aspect of our membership has not been given the profile it deserves.
The reforms have had to address two sharply conflicting aims: on the one hand, to achieve greater fiscal restraint over a budget and individual contributions that are ever increasing; and, on the other hand, to continue to assist existing poorer regions and cope with future post-enlargement demands from new regions.
Many existing members want their overall contribution to fall in real terms and there have been calls for greater abatements and refunds. However, demands are increasing as awareness of what can be funded increases. Therefore, to reduce the number of initiatives, restrict the range of community initiatives and undertake an exercise in concentration to target assistance in a more focused manner, with the additional benefit of simplifying the system generally, are welcome measures which we should support.
The strict application of the criteria for objective 1, based on per capita gross domestic product of 75 per cent. of the EU average, is understandable from the EU' s point of view. As the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said, it makes for clear-cut, black-and-white decision making. However, it could lead to conflict over the boundaries used for the purposes of statistical data to support new applications. Common sense must prevail, and some flexibility should be retained.
It appears that the total share of structural funds received by the UK would actually fall, and many regions currently enjoying objectives 2 and 5b status only might

1455
in future receive only transitional funds under the new objective 2 status. That might have a major effect on some of the regions currently obtaining support, forcing them to draw up new economic plans.
The proposed timetables are, on the face of it, extremely tight, but they must be adhered to if the reforms are to be well embedded prior to the first wave of any enlargement. There will obviously be a danger, emphasised in the report, of putting off difficult decisions—indeed, it appears that some EU members put off a rather difficult decision today. However, that must not be allowed to happen, as procrastination would clearly invite greater difficulties in future. It might also delay opportunities for new members to join: it must be remembered that the peoples of those aspirant member states might lose some of their enthusiasm for enduring the very strictures imposed on them to enable their countries to meet the accession criteria. The EU must maintain the momentum of reform to ensure that enlargement can and does come about.
The Committee's recommendation to concentrate funding on the poorest 20 per cent. of regions is based on a desire to reduce the gap between richer and poorer nations, but it would also reduce the number of objective 1 regions and so be difficult to implement, especially as some of those regions will have only just received that status—I am not necessarily referring to Cornwall in that context. However, the suggestion that each member state should undertake to reduce the population covered as a means of sharing the burden of geographical concentration has some merit. It would be a fairer system that allowed each state to decide how to implement the policy within its own boundaries.
I should like to make a few remarks as a Member of Parliament from Cornwall. As the Minister knows, the whole of Cornwall was pleased—nay, delighted—when the county became a NUTS 2 region in its own right, with the result that its case for objective 1 status was much enhanced. Cornwall is clearly on a par with places such as Greece and Spain in terms of GDP per head, and I, along with nearly half a million other people, am looking forward hopefully to the confirmation of objective 1 status for Cornwall in the not-too-distant future.
The county of Cornwall has benefited from objective 5b status, the experience of which is pertinent to my final point: that the process of seeking funding is far too complex. In addition, it is too unco-ordinated with other programmes, and too vulnerable to delays in decision making. All that often results in carefully assembled packages falling apart at the wrong moment. The bureaucracy and over-elaborate administrative procedures must be examined and overhauled so that, when dealing with the private sector, which is vital in respect of matched funding, we can keep pace with its timetables.
Such reform will not result in any lessening of the quality of accountability, or of ensuring that proper control is maintained. It is unacceptable to allow impediments to such critical funding packages, especially those relating to objective 1 areas, to persist. Some subsidiarity must be applied to that area of EU operations.
Mr. David Heath: I am glad that my hon. Friend has touched on subsidiarity.
1456
Having read the Committee report and the Government's overall response, does he agree that the weakest part of that response relates to recommendation 13, which deals with subsidiarity? Does it not bode rather ill for the forthcoming informal European Council on subsidiarity if, at that conference, the Government are not going to promote the case for subsidiarity beyond national level?
Mr. Breed: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There has been much talk about subsidiarity, but little action to enable it to take place. That is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the over-bureaucratic administration of funding packages.
The reforms will modernise the structural funds in advance of enlargement, and reduce the total funds available, which should ensure some restraint on funding. However, I suspect that, as with other funds, demand will always exceed the available resources.
I hope that there will be a fervent desire to tackle the bureaucracy and over-elaborate administration. If the red tape were cleared away, that would do much to ensure that economic development was quickly achieved in the regions of the EU, in all the objective statuses, and we know that time is critical to many parts of the UK and other EU countries.
7.30 pm
Mr. Bill O'Brien: It is pleasing to be able to take part in this debate. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who fully explained the national and European dimensions, means that my speech will be shorter because I can concentrate on local issues and plead with the Minister to take note of the problems suffered by coalfield areas.
Research shows that European funding is the largest source of finance for economic regeneration in many areas of the United Kingdom. For the five years from 1994 to 1999, the assessed total that we could obtain is about £3.2 billion for objective 2 funding to assist rundown industrial areas. Those include my constituency and the Wakefield area, where mining, textile and engineering jobs have been lost in their thousands. They were well-paid jobs which contributed substantially to the economy of the Wakefield area and the surrounding towns and cities.
European Union funding could contribute to the securing of 340,000 jobs nationally, which would help to create jobs for redundant mineworkers and provide job opportunities for our young people. The UK is the fifth-largest contributor to the EU budget, so we make a substantial contribution for the return that we obtain.
My fear is that the redrawing of the EU map for objective 1 and objective 2 areas which determines the availability of European grants will mean that my constituency loses out. I am concerned that areas such as West Yorkshire, and Wakefield in particular, will not qualify for either objective status if the negotiations currently taking place do not recognise their economic problems. Wakefield, which has lost its traditional industries, including coal, engineering and textiles, would suffer substantially.
I want to impress on the Minister and the European Commissioners the fact that the present criteria for awarding objective 2 status are narrow and sometimes inaccurate. They work against regions such as Yorkshire

1457
and the Humber. It would be cruel and dishonest to change the formula without taking into consideration the current economic conditions of regions such as mine.
The gross domestic product per head in former mining, textile and engineering areas is less than the EU average. The nature of jobs has changed: well-paid permanent jobs have been replaced by low-paid part-time jobs; and skilled jobs have been replaced by non-skilled work in retailing and catering. My area is becoming a supermarket jungle—out-of-town shopping is killing off town and city centres.
Training for skilled employment is a mere token in our area. High-tech jobs are difficult to find; high-tech industries are not attracted to the area, mainly because of the dereliction and closure of our traditional industries. Our damaged environment acts as a deterrent and a disincentive to investment. Local authorities that represent those rundown areas are working hard to combat that dereliction, but they have limited resources. That is a significant reason why areas that now qualify for objective 2 status should continue to do so.
The legacy of over-dependency on a few traditional industries is enduring, and local authorities are working hard to encourage industries and businesses to locate in their areas, but the going is hard and we need the support of EU structural funds. We also need the European Commission to take note of the problems in those areas. I ask that, in any redrawing of the structural maps, note be taken of all the economic conditions.
My constituents ask for fairness, not favours. I support the Government negotiators in pressing the European Commission to consider all economic and social aspects in our regions. In my lobbying for objective 2 status for the Wakefield area, I point out that it has a high proportion of derelict land, high levels of economic inactivity, a high level of dependency on income support, high levels of ill health, low life expectancy and declining male employment. On behalf of my constituents, I therefore plead with the House to be unanimous and impress on the European Commissioners the need to maintain objective 2 status in our area.
7.37 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome the report and I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate. I congratulate the Minister on her generous and open-door policy and thank her for her generous replies to correspondence and my requests for meetings with her.
I join other hon. Members who have made special pleadings for their areas. As the Minister knows, there is concern in North Yorkshire that has not yet been allayed, particularly about the fact that two initiatives will be discontinued. The first is the Konver programme, which has had a positive impact on areas in my constituency. I am not convinced that those areas will continue to benefit under the new arrangements for objective 2, which is worrying.
I also make a plea on behalf of the farming community, which receives generous benefits from the 5b proposals. I do not need to remind the House of the present plight of farmers. Never before in my lifetime have I witnessed all sectors of the farming industry in such a crisis. Farmers in lowland areas such as the Vale of York, who would normally admit privately to being reasonably well off, have desperately low incomes this year. I make a special plea that those areas covered by the 5b provision not be forgotten.
1458
I am pleased that the Select Committee's report refers to some programmes specifically. However, I am concerned that, in the tussle for funds between rural and urban areas—such as those represented by hon. Members who have spoken this evening—places such as the Vale of York will lose out because the initiatives and the population number criterion are being reduced. I issue a plea on behalf of the rural community that it should continue to benefit from European funding.
Under the new proposals, the existing arrangements will obviously cease from 2000. Tourism, particularly in North Yorkshire, has suffered this year as a result of the strength of the pound and competition from package holidays to attractive parts of Europe and other world destinations. That crisis in the tourism industry must be recognised. Under the current proposals, most service sectors do not qualify for funding because the emphasis is very much on the decline in the manufacturing industry. I do not know whether the Government—even during the United Kingdom's EU presidency, when a vigorous campaign was fought over the transitional arrangements—have made a special case for funding tourism and other service sectors, including port-related activities. I hope that the hon. Lady will put my mind at rest this evening by assuring the House that tourism will benefit from the revised proposals.
I was struck by one important point in the Committee's conclusions: whether the Government have faced honestly the real impact of the proposals on the whole of the United Kingdom. I refer to new objective 2. Several million people currently qualify for funding under the former objective 5b and Konver provisions, and it is regrettable that there will be a dramatic fall in the number who will benefit under the new arrangements. The United Kingdom receives 9 per cent. of the total EU structural funds, but the amount will fall dramatically from 2000. There is no guarantee that people will continue to benefit to the same extent under the transitional arrangements. Will the hon. Lady confirm that the request for an extension of relevant objectives 1 and 2 to six or seven years will be agreed by the other member states?
The new arrangements will, rightly or wrongly, give more say to the national administration and the local Government offices for the regions on how the funds will be administered. We seek an assurance this evening that there will be a certain continuity in the allocation of moneys, which should not be jeopardised in the future.
I met the Minister in about May this year and I was struck by her reference to the new concept of pockets of rural deprivation. However, the Minister's replies in correspondence of 18 June were rather open-ended. She said, for instance, that the negotiations were still at an early stage. However, I understand that the Prime Minister has said that the new arrangements must be agreed by March next year. That is a very ambitious timetable. Will the Minister elucidate on the concept of pockets of rural deprivation and the other outstanding matters on which we touched earlier?
7.44 pm
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I shall be very parochial in my speech tonight—and I make no apologies for that. As chairman of the northern group of Labour Members of Parliament, I speak on behalf of the north-east as well as my constituency. I stress the

1459
immense value of structural funds to that region. Those funds have been worth more than £1,000 million to the north-east since 1989 and have created tens of thousands of jobs. At more than £100 million per annum, they are worth more than the proposed budget of the regional development agency. The funds have assisted areas suffering major economic and social hardship and the dislocation of the local work force, and rural areas suffering from a combination of sparse population and a continued dependence on agriculture.
The funds have secured enormous achievements for the north-east. Structural funds have allowed the region to cope with massive structural change and have been a huge boost to the north-east's economic, social and environmental regeneration. They have encouraged considerable private investment. The funds have raised regional competitiveness and have been used effectively and imaginatively. The north-east has been cited by the Commission as one of the best performers in applying and directing resources.
All that is under threat, as the European Commission is recommending the reform of structural funds and a reduction by up to a third in the population level that they cover. Special support to the coalfields and to specific sectors, such as textiles, steel and shipbuilding, will be scrapped. I stress that the north-east needs continued assistance. The task of restructuring the economy is not yet complete and the north-east continues to face severe social and economic problems of a deep-rooted structural nature.
First, per capita gross domestic product in the north-east is the lowest of any region in the country. Secondly, the north-east has the highest unemployment claimant count of any English region. More than one in three unemployed people have been unemployed for more than 12 months. Real unemployment—that is, joblessness—is more than twice as high as the claimant count. Thirdly, average weekly wages in the north-east are the lowest of any English region. The north-east has the lowest disposable household income in the whole of the United Kingdom. Some 37 per cent. of those in work earn less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold—that is the highest rate in the United Kingdom.
Fourthly, business start-up and survival rates are among the lowest in the United Kingdom. Economic activity rates for both men and women are the lowest in England and the second lowest in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, recent large-scale job losses have exacerbated the problem and highlighted the fragility of the region's economy. I assure the House that that is not a price worth paying.
Although structural funds have cushioned the region from further decline, its relative competitiveness has slipped as other regions have improved their economic performance. A reduction in structural funds would hinder the process of restructuring. It would constitute a major setback in rebuilding confidence and the diversity and strength of the region's economy. Such a reduction would cause a rapid decline in competitiveness and widen the gap between the region and other parts of the United Kingdom and Europe.
The north-east needs the maximum level of financial assistance. Parts of the region—notably the former coalfield and rural areas—have a gross domestic product
1460
of less than 75 per cent. of the EU average, which is the selection criterion for objective 1 funding. Northumberland and Durham have not been included as a level 2 region in the agreement reached between the Office for National Statistics and Eurostat. The designation of Northumberland and Durham as a level 2 region would have given us a good chance of obtaining objective 1 status, which would bring up to £150 million in European grants to the area.
The decisions on the revision of level 2 area status are supposedly based purely on statistical arguments rather than political decisions. However, on close examination, that does not appear to be the case. Eurostat has accepted some changes to the level 2 lists. They are in Cornwall, west Wales, London and Scotland.
Before anyone gets up in arms, let me make it clear that it is absolutely not my intention to argue that those areas should not have redesignation—far from it. I agree with the Council of Ministers and the European Commission that decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible. My argument is that there appears to be a double standard in that some areas are accepted while others are rejected.
Let me take Cornwall as an example. If there is supposed to be a statistical adherence to size basis, why should Cornwall, with a population of just 400,000, become a level 2 area?
Ms Candy Atherton: The figure is 480,000. Let us get this absolutely clear. Let us be honest and say that Cornwall is a cultural region in its own right.
Mr. Steinberg: I was coming to that. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am not arguing against Cornwall's redesignation. I am simply making a comparison, and I am entitled to do that. If one area gets level 2 status and another does not, there must be a reason. I want to find out what that reason is. I do not begrudge Cornwall getting redesignation. I am delighted, so my hon. Friend should not get herself in a twist.
Cornwall has been allowed to split off from Devon because of a
"recognition of the very different economic conditions of the counties and Cornwall's sparsity of population, geographic peripherality and distinct cultural and historical factors reflecting a Celtic background."
That was a quote from Eurostat.
As Cornwall is a county, on the general rationale it should be a level 3 area and, as such, be eligible for objective 2 rather than objective 1. The specific points allowed by Eurostat in accepting the case for level 2 designation include the "different economic conditions" between Devon and Cornwall, which in gross domestic product terms is 15 per cent. The discrepancy in GDP terms between Northumberland and Tyne and Wear is also 15 per cent. Therefore, economic conditions are just as different between Northumberland and Tyne and Wear as they are between Devon and Cornwall.
It is also worth pointing out that Cornwall is part of the south-west region, which has an overall GDP of 95 per cent. of the EU average while the northern region has only

1461
85 per cent. of the EU average. We are a poor part of a poor region, whereas Cornwall is a poor part of a much richer region.
Cornwall's population sparsity is specifically referred to as part of the rationale for accepting level 2 review. However, in Northumberland and Durham, sparsity is worse, at 123 people per sq km compared with 136 people per sq km in Cornwall. Emphasis is placed on Cornwall's geographical peripherality. Penzance, at the extreme western tip of Cornwall is 282 miles from London while Berwick in the north of Northumberland is further away at 357 miles from London.
I now turn to the
"distinct cultural and historic factors reflecting Celtic background".
How can that possibly be a statistical argument? On that basis, Northumberland should have objective 1 status because we were not conquered by the Romans.
In view of that, what exactly is the rationale for accepting Cornwall for review, but not Northumberland and Durham? I ask that question quite seriously. If anything, the statistical case for Cornwall is rather less robust than that for Northumberland and Durham, reinforcing our view that the decision was political, not statistical.
The north-east is one of the most structurally challenged areas and that is why it needs structural funds. The UK Government have finally recognised coalfield areas as a priority. Now is not the time to disallow access to what will be the last major chance of structural funds going to the UK to help those areas. Europe grew out of the coal and steel community. The coalfields have to be understood in the context of permanent, steep long-term decline. The insistence of Eurostat on ignoring the United Kingdom position and rescheduling those areas as level 2 means that they must now compete as objective 2 regions, although their success is by no means certain. In fact, they are objective 1 regions trying to get objective 2 funding. The designation of objective 1 status should be the subject of open debate by the EU and member states, along with the principles of subsidiarity, transparency, fairness and social justice. The matter should not be cut and dried, with Eurostat overruling member states by the utilisation of a subjective formula.
The Commission has proposed that objective 2 eligibility should be based predominantly on employment and unemployment statistics. Industrial decline in the north-east has been long-term and sustained. Some areas have lost so many industrial jobs that they may not continue to qualify as industrial areas.
In selecting eligible objective 2 areas, the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission must use additional indicators of deprivation and exclusion that are meaningful. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that additional selection criteria for objective 2 status should include some of the following factors.
First, per capita GDP should be recognised by the EC as the single most important factor in determining whether a region lags behind the rest of Europe. Parts of the north-east contain some of the lowest GDP in the United Kingdom, and the region as a whole has the lowest GDP of any region. Secondly, the skills level of the work force is fundamental to their ability to compete effectively. The narrow skills base in the north-east is a direct consequence of traditional structural reliance on heavy industry and
1462
agriculture. Thirdly, the north-east suffers from endemic deep-rooted unemployment. Official unemployment statistics underplay the problem of joblessness and the related issue of social exclusion. Fourthly, rural areas continue to suffer acute problems in terms of overdependence on a narrow and inflexible economic base, changing economic structures, remoteness and scarcity of population. Finally, aid should be concentrated on areas suffering structural problems. Allowing small areas with cyclical problems to qualify would reduce the impact of structural funds and fail to recognise real need.
At a European level, the UK Government are seeking a fair distribution of structural funds across member states. Distribution within the United Kingdom should also be on a fair basis, recognising real indicators of need. The economy in the north-east is struggling with huge job losses continuing to occur in manufacturing. The region is still undergoing a major restructuring process. The continuation of structural funds is vital to stabilise the future economy and boost job prospects in the north-east of England.
7.56 pm
Mr. David Prior: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) with whom I served on the Select Committee for a few months. I am particularly pleased to follow a Labour Member who still believes in the redistribution of wealth, which is something of a surprise these days.
The debate is important because we receive £11 billion a year from the structural fund which represent 45 per cent. of the European budget. We badly need reform, not just because of the enlargement of Europe, but because as everyone agrees—and the Committee certainly agreed—the system has become hugely over-bureaucratic and needs simplification. Let me quote one item from the Committee report:
"Eligibility for Objective 1 status is based on areas defined in Euro-speak as 'NUTS Level 2'. There has for some years been in existence a system of Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics, designed to provide a single uniform breakdown of sub-national territorial units for statistical and other purposes."
Very few normal people can understand a word of that and it illustrates just how complicated and difficult the system has become. I agree with the Committee report when it refers to the results as arbitrary and capricious.
Worst of all is the political horse-trading in the background and we have heard something about it this evening. Even with Agenda 2000 determining the criteria by which parts of Europe should qualify for the new objectives, there is already horse-trading over those criteria.
It is nonsense that the criteria are determined at EU level and I am glad that the Committee recognised that and stated in its conclusions that in future they must include
"delegation to the lowest practicable level, and to non-statutory bodies in suitable cases."
I was also pleased to see conclusion 24 which states:
"The extent to which Objective 2 arrangements allow for funds to be targeted if necessary below local government ward level will be a measure of the Government's success in negotiations."
My own view is that that does not go nearly far enough. It is hard not to agree with Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who asked whether it would be more sensible for us to take

1463
control of the whole £11 billion and spend it wisely on our real needs, no doubt saving several billion pounds along the way. The more decisions that can be made locally, the better. If we carry on as we have in the past, we shall merely bring the European Union into disrepute.
Representing a rural constituency, I have a particular concern that objective 5b will be subsumed into the new objective 2, and that the rural areas will be squeezed. They will have to compete directly with industrial and urban areas, and historically they have had far less clout.
The indicators chosen by the European Commission to decide which areas qualify for support clearly discriminate against rural areas. The Commission decided that to qualify, rural areas must have a population density of less than 100 people per square kilometre or a high percentage of agricultural workers. In the United Kingdom that will have a serious effect on our ability to qualify for objective 5b.
Part of my constituency does qualify for objective 5b. It has been successful in attracting new industry and there has been a fruitful partnership between the local authority and private business. Indeed, the Select Committee report includes a letter from my district council which states that it believes that
"the additional funding available under the programme has seen positive effects delivered in the area—particularly in terms of capital investment projects by the public and private sectors in Fakenham".
The loss of objective 5b funding will have a serious impact on Fakenham and the
surrounding area.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: The hon. Gentleman will know from that section of the report that parts of his district felt that they did not obtain objective 5b funding because Lowestoft in my constituency was granted objective 5b, although it is a town of 60,000 or 70,000 people. The case for help through structural funds for Lowestoft was overwhelming, but it was not large enough to qualify for objective 2. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), may I say that there are small areas with structural, not just cyclical, unemployment?
Because the only way to help Lowestoft was through objective 5b, it had to be redefined as rural. Is that not an argument for reform of the funds, so that areas such as Lowestoft can get what they deserve, without having to be designated as rural at the expense of other rural areas?
Mr. Prior: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman presents an argument for ensuring that decisions are taken locally, so that such considerations can be taken into account.
I shall conclude my speech with a further example. Alongside North Norfolk is a coastal strip where there are several fishing communities. They would have qualified under objective 5b, but for the fact that the travel-to-work area in which a number of fishermen were assessed included Fakenham, Cromer, North Walsham and other towns, so there was not a high enough percentage of fishermen to qualify. Along the coastal strip, however, the percentage is sufficiently high.
I hope that when the Minister negotiates the qualifications for objective 2, she will support the submission to her from the North Norfolk district council that the Nrth Norfolk coastal strip should be designated under the fisheries strand of the objective 2 programme.
1464
I believe strongly that the structural funds should be allocated and spent locally, as near as possible to the ground, and that rural areas such as North Norfolk and other parts of Great Britain should be safeguarded.
8.3 pm
Ms Candy Atherton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in tonight's debate. To us in Cornwall, objective 1 is more than an opaque piece of bureaucratic jargon. To many, it is like the holy grail—a recognition that distinct regions such as ours on the periphery of the European Market need assistance to overcome chronic structural disadvantages. Indeed, I would not be going too far if I said that in Cornwall, European structural funds are exceedingly sexy.
It came as a terrific boost in June to learn that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry had recognised the inherent logic behind Cornwall's case for recognition as a distinct region at NUTS level 2. Whereas most people in less hard hit regions might repay the mention of objective 1 with a glazed expression, in my constituency even the eyes of schoolchildren light up.
I should not want my hon. Friends to think that we have been pleading emotionally for special treatment. The merit of Cornwall's case rests partly on its distinct regional identity. Cornwall has a unique cultural and economic history. In its heyday it was the powerhouse of British industry, but today it could easily be described as a backwater. The Select Committee agreed in its report that
"it would be…absurd to describe Cornwall as a bogus entity."
I should welcome a visit to Cornwall by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), so that I could show him myself the structural problems that we face.
The merit of Cornwall's case also rests heavily on statistics. Recent figures—I believe that more have been published today—show that gross domestic product in the county is only 68 per cent. of the EU average. That is well below the 75 per cent. cut-off for objective 1. I understand that we have come bottom of the table in today's statistics.
For years the truth about Cornwall's problems has been masked by amalgamation with relatively prosperous Devon. We have received objective 5b grants, which are highly constructive. However, they do not offer the fundamental help that the county desperately needs.
The Prime Minister recognised our strong technical case, which also had strong backing in all political parties, in the county and through the wider south-west. The first action of the regional chamber of the south-west was to support unanimously Cornwall's case for objective 1. We were delighted to learn this summer to learn that Eurostat had agreed that Cornwall should be separated from Devon at NUTS level 2.
Cornwall now satisfies all the technical criteria for gaining objective 1 funding. As we approach the next round of objective 1 allocations, we in Cornwall were encouraged that, in discussing the flexibility of the 75 per cent. threshold, the Select Committee suggested that
"it is hard to imagine a region below the threshold being excluded".
I look forward to the county council producing an irrefutable package of proposals, based on widespread consultation throughout the county, which will put the seal on our bid. Next week the movers and shakers of

1465
the county meet to thrash out the first phase of our plans to spend. Over the next few weeks a consultation document will be delivered to every door in the county asking for direct input from the grass roots.
I particularly agree with the Committee's analysis of the complexity of the process. It is indeed complex, and that is compounded by the jargon. We encounter terms such as Eurostat, Leader, state aids, objectives 1 to 6, the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, and my favourite term—NUTS. It would be fair to say that most people in Cornwall are becoming comfortable with the terminology, if sometimes a little confused. A man came to my surgery recently and asked me, "Well, then, Candy, are we going to get this objectionable 1?" I hope and believe that we will.
In Cornwall we have a true partnership between the public and private sectors, central and local government, and from voluntary organisations to the health authority, all headed by the county council. If we succeed in achieving objective 1, we shall have the opportunity to redefine our county, create a new university, tackle our infrastructure problems and, perhaps, as a predominantly small and medium-sized business centre, become the leading light across the EU in supporting and developing this sector.
The opportunities are there for the taking, and Cornwall stands at a crossroads. I hope that the county that currently stands on a par with the poorer regions of Portugal and Greece will be able to reorient itself into the future, with all its people pulling together.
8.10 pm
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The reality is, as the members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry accepted in their report, that the European Union faces budgetary restrictions at a time of expansion. New nations, which we in the Scottish National party are keen to see joining the EU, are the very nations for which structural and cohesion funding are vital to ensure smooth accession and the subsequent smooth operation of the single market.
On the Scottish National party Benches we strongly hold to the principle—as has already been mentioned, it is somewhat out of fashion—that those who have a little more should in the best interests of society, or in this instance the best interests of the EU, contribute to those who have a little or a lot less. Equalising economic development and creating a stable union is in all our interests. We shall all benefit from the new partners who are in a position to participate fully in the single market but the political reality is that there is no endless pot of Euro-gold. If we are to have new members, the cake will have to be divided differently. It is important that the criteria that we adopt in cutting up that cake is not inflexible. We must take a wider view than the current criteria propose.
As for the proposed new objective 1, there must be great doubt over the accuracy of some of the regional gross domestic product figures that are being used as the main criteria for the objective. These figures are partly based on sample surveys. Even the Office for National Statistics itself says that the
"estimates cannot be regarded as accurate to the last digit shown."
Yet on that basis a member of the cabinet of Commissioner Monika Wolf-Mathies, who obviously must be a very important person as he was asked
1466
before the Select Committee in another place, said—[HON. MEMBERS: "She."] No. I am talking about the cabinet member representing the commissioner. He said before the Select Committee in another place that 75.1 per cent. shared gross domestic product was enough to exclude a region from objective 1. That means an exclusion based on the first decimal point of an inaccurate statistic.
On that basis, the highlands and islands would technically fall outwith the new criteria based on gross domestic product alone. If we take the original reasoning for objective 1, the highlands and islands would clearly benefit from the sort of structural support that is envisaged for objective 1 areas.
The arguments for the highlands and islands getting objective 1 have been well rehearsed, but they should certainly be repeated with force by the Government during the ensuing negotiations. I would expect the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) to rehearse the arguments in some detail if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In terms of peripherality, population density, composition and general geography, there is an overwhelming case for the highlands and islands to be treated in the same way as the northern rim regions of Sweden—these are regions that have a higher gross domestic product than the highlands and islands—and Finland.
The case for the highlands and islands is strong, but less attention has been given in Scotland to the position of new objective 2 or current 5b areas. My constituency currently falls within the 5b area, but much of coastal rural "lowland" Scotland is also covered. Population density, unemployment and depopulation are all useful indicators, but they often fail to show the real picture of need.
The Government must press for objective 2 to take more fully into account all the possible indicators of low economic activity. For example, we must consider the amount of casual, seasonal or part-time employment. We must consider also the incidence of low earnings or low household incomes. We must take account of remoteness and lack of access to services and opportunities. We must consider not only population density but population composition—for example, is there an aging population or is there a substantial incidence of emigration of young people?
We must be concerned also about the arbitrary drawing of boundaries. I must say, given the remarks of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), that I have no claim to include Berwick within any of the Scottish areas. However, gross domestic product and unemployment statistics conceal vast differences within areas. For example, the GDP of the highlands and islands is skewed by the inclusion of Inverness. The area of the islands is greatly skewed by the inclusion of Shetland.
Unemployment is also a variable statistic. Male unemployment based on claimant count within the region in which my constituency is situated—that is Dumfries and Galloway—is 7.4 per cent. Yet male unemployment in the Newton Stewart travel-to-work area within my constituency is 14.6 per cent., which is almost double. We must have a system that is flexible enough to cope with these discrepancies.
I am concerned that my area of Dumfries and Galloway may not qualify under the current proposed criteria. However, the issue is not about looking after our
own

1467
backyard and that alone; it is about delivering though objective 2 the aims of economic development. It is about ensuring that communities elsewhere in Scotland, the United Kingdom or throughout the European Union do not have the door closed on them because we have rigidly applied some statistics that have been dreamt up in some bureaucrat's office. So objective 2 should be about providing opportunities for the best programmes in areas of genuine need and not simply, as the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said—
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that areas of great need could include, or should include, fishing communities and fisheries dependent areas?
Mr. Morgan: I would certainly agree with that. That is something that we should bear in mind when we are considering the composition of an area. We should take into account the reliance of that area on declining industries such as fishing and, unfortunately, agriculture. I was saying that we should not simply be throwing all the money at a chosen few. Instead, we should be focusing on the best programmes for areas of genuine need.
In the area that I represent the net income from structural funds is dwarfed by contributions from the common agricultural policy. We are faced with not only the reform of structural funding but complete reassessment of the CAP. There is a growing feeling that European assistance under the CAP should move away from subsidy towards a programme of rural investment. That has a crucial bearing on our debate on structural funding.
At a time when rural areas across Europe and the United Kingdom are facing the possibility of reduced structural support, we must ask ourselves whether there are ways of refocusing other moneys to promote economic development in these areas. We need to find ways of more closely integrating the aims of both funding strands—that is the structural funds and the CAP—to ensure that maximum benefit goes to the areas in greatest need.
Finally, I want to focus briefly on the mechanisms for delivering structural funds within Scotland. We have a structure of local programmes and partnerships, which in many instances have been effective in building community structures and in disbursing structural funds. However, with the creation of a new streamlined structure of three objectives and four funds we have a good opportunity to consider the delivery mechanisms. There has been much criticism of existing structures that centre on levels of bureaucracy, endless meetings, seminars, forums, consultants and little true democratic accountability.
That being so, we must ask ourselves whether there is an opportunity to streamline delivery, to make greater use in Scotland of local enterprise companies along with local authorities and community partnerships and to improve scrutiny through a dedicated Committee of the Scottish Parliament. I would expect the new Scottish Parliament closely to examine this area to ensure that our structures are the most efficient at delivering for Scotland.
Transitional arrangements and safety nets will be vital. We must fight to ensure fair criteria for the new objectives. We must ensure that adequate provision is
1468
made to cope with any delay in agreeing the new scheme. The successful partnerships now in place must not be allowed to disappear while the bureaucrats and politicians argue about the next scheme.
8.19 pm
Mr. Jon Trickett: Paragraph 49 of the report refers to the importance of flexibility in the setting of boundaries for the allocation of funds, and states:
"It is clearly important that…the areas which are most in need should receive the funding…The extent to which Objective 2 arrangements allow for funds to be targeted … will be a measure of the Government's success in negotiations."
I agree.
The European Commission's proposals are in danger of causing great injustice, particularly to the coalfield areas, by being too rigid and failing to deal with significant sub-regional disparities. I shall illustrate my point by reference to my area.
Wakefield district, where my constituency is located, has been a significant beneficiary of European funds for many years under objective 2. Since 1989, it has received about £40 million. We have been able to create 2,500 jobs and train about 11,000 of our residents. Local people cannot understand how the district could not qualify for such funding in future. They say that if we fitted the criteria for assistance more than a decade ago, when, admittedly, things in Wakefield were bad, it is inconceivable that we will not have access to the funds when our situation is immeasurably worse after the Thatcher and Major years. Over the past 15 years, the local traditional industries have been decimated. Wakefield had 20 collieries. Now it has one—20,000 mining jobs went. There have been major closures in other local industries such as
engineering, textiles and clothing.
According to the recommended criteria, our economy is counted as part of the West Yorkshire region. Our economic and social data are distorted because we are regarded effectively as being part of Greater Leeds. I come from Leeds. I was born, grew up and spent most of my life there. Eventually, I became leader of that great city, but I now live in the former pit villages in the east of the Wakefield district. That is the place I represent. Leeds and Wakefield share almost no economic or social characteristics except for the fact that, for administrative purposes, we form part of the West Riding of Yorkshire, as I insist on calling it.
To qualify for objective 1 funds, it is necessary for a region to have gross domestic product per capita below 75 per cent. of the European Union average. West Yorkshire's figure is well above 90 per cent., but the figure for Wakefield is much lower. It is estimated at 77 per cent., the lowest by far in the West Riding. That statistic alone demonstrates the falsity of the assumption that the population of a region as diverse as ours should be regarded as socially or economically homogeneous.
The same point applies to the objective 2 criteria, but I shall not pursue it because it is self-evident. However, I shall demonstrate the need for European Union structural funds to be sensitive to sub-regional disparities, especially the needs of former mining areas, by reference to my constituency. There are three factors.
First, Hemsworth in the mid-1980s was massively dependent on an industrial base. We were one of the nation's great wealth generators. Two thirds of jobs were

1469
classified as industrial—twice the national average. As a result of what can only be described as an economic cataclysm, two thirds of those jobs disappeared in 14 years. Now only a quarter of the jobs in my constituency can be classified as industrial. Wakefield was the seventh worst hit district in the country in the industrial restructuring of the 1980s and 1990s. The district lost 23,000 jobs, but it covers four constituencies. Half the job losses were in just one constituency—mine. We lost almost 10,000 mining jobs in 14 years. That is industrial restructuring on a colossal scale and we will live for many years with the social consequences.
My second point concerns GDP per capita. We live in a region with slightly more than 90 per cent. of the EU average, but it is estimated that the figure for Hemsworth is substantially less than the 75 per cent., which would allow us access to objective 1 funding. My constituency shares boundaries with Barnsley and Doncaster. Our economic and social structure and the competitiveness of local firms have more in common with the South Yorkshire districts than with Leeds and Bradford. All that separates us from South Yorkshire is a couple of fields and a beck—a stream to those unfamiliar with our Yorkshire language. Wading through the beck on the other side of those fields, it seems that South Yorkshire will benefit from the highest priority objective 1 funds while we lose our access to the lower order objective 2 status.
My third point relates to earned income levels. According to Library estimates, one in four people working in my constituency earns less than £3.50 an hour. That compares with one in 14 in West Yorkshire and one in 20 in the economy as a whole. It is inconceivable to argue on that basis for the trickle-down theory, or to say that we are part of the West Yorkshire economy: we clearly are not.
I recognise that the British Government have a complex and sensitive task in negotiating with Brussels. Many people in my area believe that during the Tory years, a sustained effort was launched to tear the heart out of the villages where I live and which I am proud to represent. Small wonder that a recent university study concluded that many people in Hemsworth feel politically, economically and socially marginalised. The European Union recognised that sentiment as the inevitable corollary of industrial and economic restructuring. The structural funds were established because social cohesion was regarded as a fundamental objective of civilised governance. Its opposite, alienation, was seen as destructive of the social fabric. Social cohesion was one of the fundamental objectives of article 2 of Single European Act.
Over the past 15 years, Westminster has often seemed to be the enemy while the EU, through the structural funds, appeared to be our only ally. There will be great frustration and disappointment should the fund be withdrawn with the task only partially completed, or as I would say, hardly begun. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will do all that she can to ensure that any changes to the administration of the funds are introduced with the greatest care and delicacy, paying particular attention to the existence of sub-regional disparities and micro-economies such as those in West Yorkshire.
I respectfully remind the Minister of the Deputy Prime Minister's coalfield task force report on this matter. She will recall that the task force was acutely aware of
1470
the needs of the coalfields and of the significance of securing continuing assistance from Europe. Its report made three recommendations. I recommend those propositions to the House and to her as she goes to negotiate on our behalf.
8.28 pm
Mr. Tim Collins: I commend the Select Committee and its staff for producing an admirably clear and constructive report. It is in many ways a model of its kind, both informative and persuasive. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on his elegant presentation to open the debate. I know that he was filling in for the Committee's Chairman, but, with his magisterial mastery of the overview, he demonstrated that he deserves to be a Chairman in his own right, if greater glory does not beckon before that.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about cohesion funds. If there is a case—and clearly, as many hon. Members have said, there is—for simplification, reduction and co-ordination of the European Union's expenditure in such areas, surely it must arise first and foremost with the cohesion funds.
Here we have public expenditure that was set up for a specific purpose—to prepare four member states for meeting the convergence criteria for joining the EU. Brussels has declared that three of the four have now met those criteria, yet the money is to continue to be paid in large measure. The hon. Gentleman is right to describe that as absurd. To me it is illustrative of a system one of whose acronyms is NUTS. There is a problem there, and it needs to be addressed.
My second point concerns the wider United Kingdom national interest. Whether we are Euro-sceptics, Europhiles or something in between, whether we supported HMS Durham as it shelled HMS Falmouth earlier in the debate, or whether we supported HMS Falmouth as it elegantly shelled HMS Durham back, and whatever our position on the issues, there is a broad United Kingdom national interest in ensuring that we get as much as possible out of the European funds.
We put far more into the European Union than we get out, and we want to make sure that we get out as much as we can. We must all therefore agree that the Government should take a hard-headed negotiating position.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Does my hon. Friend recall, and will he remind the House, that the genesis of regional development funds lies back in the days of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), during the negotiations on European accession? It was precisely in order to correct some of the imbalances in European funding that the concept was introduced.
Mr. Collins: I agree. The funds are an important balancing mechanism. The Government must continue to remind our EU partners that the reason the United Kingdom gets a large share of the funds is that the system was, and should continue to be, an attempt to rebalance some of the ways in which funds are redistributed around the Union.

1471
We continue to put far more into the European Union than we get back, and however the budgetary negotiations turn out, that will continue to be the case. On the evidence of the debate, the Government would be right to believe that there was strong cross-party support for a tough negotiating position. I hope that the Minister has heard that in the debate today; it has been a consistent theme of speeches from both sides of the House.
If the Minister will forgive me for the analogy, I hope that she will—indeed, having read her testimony before the Select Committee, I believe that she intends to—go in to bat for Britain rather as a certain right hon. Lady did a few years ago: thump the table and demand our money. Indeed, I see that the hon. Lady has her handbag beside her on the Bench; no doubt she knows how to use it, and I commend her on her negotiating stance.
Like other hon. Members, I shall talk about an important constituency dimension. Much of my constituency benefits from objective 5b expenditure. It is important to recognise that even constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), with low unemployment—ours is below 2 per cent., and I know that many hon. Ladies and Gentlemen on both sides of the House might envy that, and want their constituencies to move towards it—are not without their difficulties.
My constituency is very rural. Those in the House who were present last night at a meeting of the Rural Services Partnership heard an interesting presentation by Rita Hale, formerly of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, about the fact that people in rural areas have far less access than people elsewhere to public transport and public services, and have to travel much further in terms of both time and distance to get any form of public service, whether that be a leisure centre, a library, the health service, a jobcentre or benefits advice.
In my part of the world we are heavily dependent on two forms of employment. One is agriculture, which, according to local farmers, now faces its worst crisis for 40 or 50 years. The other is tourism, which has also had a bad year, partly because of the strength of sterling, and partly because of the bad weather.
That combination means that many of my constituents feel that this is the worst possible time for any serious debate about taking away large sums in European funding from areas such as ours. So I was delighted to hear the Department of Trade and Industry press office confirm to journalists from Cumbria this afternoon that the Government do not intend to accept a simple crude measure of unemployment as the only criterion on which the funds are distributed.
As many hon. Members have said, there are factors within and behind the unemployment figures that need to be taken into account. If rural Cumbria lost all its European funding, many parts of it would feel that they were being left to bleed to death. The Government would be right to fight hard for a broader, more sensible and more all-encompassing system for the distribution of the funds.
I shall finish now, because I know that many others wish to speak, and tell the Minister that I hope that she will feel that there has been consensus in the debate on
1472
the need for a strong negotiating position. I hope that she will be able to take into the discussions with our European partners a belief that the House of Commons wishes the Government to fight Britain's corner hard, that the funds are important and that they should continue to be paid in all parts of the United Kingdom.
The funds should be available in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and in Wales, as well as in all sorts of areas in England, rural as well as urban, some with slow economic development and others that, although they may do better from time to time, do not do well all the time. I hope that the Minister feels that she will now be able to go in to bat for Britain and bring home the bacon.
8.35 pm
Mr. Ian Stewart: I, too, welcome the Trade and Industry Select Committee report, which gives a clear and thorough analysis of the implications for the United Kingdom of European Union proposals for changes in structural funds. I also welcome the Government's response to the report.
I am a keen supporter of the benefits of EU membership, and look forward to the enlargement of the Community for the enrichment that it will bring to our political and economic lives. I agree with the Government's premise that a poorer member state or region should receive more than a richer one—in other words, each according to his needs. I also agree with their view that reform of existing regional support must not only be affordable and fair but durable beyond 2006 for enlargement.
The proposed changes in European structural funds mean that while 51 per cent. of the population of the EU now receive assistance, in future only 35 to 40 per cent. of the population will be covered. The Alliance for Regional Aid has shown that funds are already closely targeted. For example, 68 per cent. of the funds go to 25 per cent. of the population.
As the Select Committee has pointed out, the Commission has said that aid should be more focused, although it has not yet made the case for further targeting. The upshot of the Commission's proposals would be that the 92 million people now covered by objective 2 or objective 5b status would be reduced to 74 million. That is a drop—or rather, a plummet—of 20 per cent.
Eccles, my constituency, in the city of Salford within the Greater Manchester area, currently benefits, as do other areas in the north-west region of England, from objective 2 status. The sub-region of Greater Manchester is one of the first and oldest industrial areas in Europe, and has suffered more than most from the widespread decline in traditional manufacturing industries and an aging and crumbling infrastructure.
For example, Salford still has an interest in clearing up the conditions left by mining blight, and one of our local authority members, Councillor Peter Grimshaw, will go to Brussels in December under the auspices of the Alliance for Regional Aid to lobby hard for the maintenance of regional funding that includes mining areas.
Typically, some full-time employment in our area has been replaced by part-time, lower-paid work, which has led to higher male unemployment. Interestingly, female unemployment is less than half the male rate in my constituency. The employment situation clearly would have been worse without European funds.

1473
In the Greater Manchester sub-region, there are many positive points. One of the considerable strengths of Greater Manchester and Salford is its major input into information and communications technologies, research and development. There is further scope for developing this potential for the region's companies through training and advice and the commercial application of research. In the region there are a number of well-developed fibre-optic cable and copper wire networks including the Gemisis 2000 project based at Salford university.
It is ironic that the north-west is faced with the threat of losing EU funding at the very time when the Labour Government are implementing policies that will assist our region, such as the new deal, the minimum wage, the introduction of the regional development agency and chamber, and a single Government office for the north-west. Those measures will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of targeted assistance.
Local authorities in the Greater Manchester area are clear that structural funds have played an essential part in the progress that has been made in the last decade. The funds are vital to ensuring that the progress is consolidated and continued. The Greater Manchester authorities have argued forcefully that, without European support, the gap between the sub-region of Greater Manchester and the other, more prosperous regions in the UK and EU would widen further.
During the 1994 to 1996 programme period, EU structural fund investment in Greater Manchester was about £190 million. More than £80 million has been or will be invested in small and medium-sized enterprises, in which more than 70 per cent. of the work force are employed. Research and development and technological infrastructure projects have received about £25 million. That translates more generally into 52,000 jobs created, 86,000 companies assisted and 13,000 training places.
Between 1994 and 1998, Salford has benefited from £23 million of European structural funds. The local labour initiative was developed by combining European structural funds and European regional development funds, which assisted 275 companies and led to the creation of 221 much needed permanent jobs in the area. Salford is focusing its grant moneys on business support, upskilling the work force and helping the unemployed to access training and employment.
Why should the assistance continue? Greater Manchester and Salford have used their funds well. Funds have been applied as part of a coherent strategy to improve the economic and social position of residents and enhance economic competitiveness. However, the Salford and Greater Manchester economy still has problems which can only be successfully solved through a long-term programme of comprehensive regeneration in which European funding should play a leading and sustained role.
My local authority believes that the review of objective 2 status should not be based solely on the current proposed criteria, and that indices of need should be sharpened and redefined to include, for example, deprivation, local gross domestic product and income levels. Under the index of deprivation, Salford is the 23rd most deprived authority in England, but even that hides the reality. Forty-six of the districts in Salford are among the worst 6 per cent. nationally. It is essential that any revised objective 2 criteria help the UK's traditional industrial and manufacturing areas.
1474
Salford has gained national pathfinder status for its innovative approach to regeneration and is working closely with the Government to share best practice. The loss of objective 2 status would undermine work currently under way. In my constituency, the Barton strategic employment zone—one of the largest undeveloped sites available for economic development in the north-west—has just received EU funding to enable it to be brought forward quickly. The zone is likely to be the engine for growth for the sub-region in the future. Without European funding, it would be difficult to get it started.
The Lowry centre in the neighbouring Salford constituency is an innovative national landmark millennium project which would not be built without EU support. Salford and Greater Manchester's priorities for support in a new objective 2 programme would include integrated business support packages, growth sector-specific support, capital for businesses to grow, access to accommodation for expansion and customised training and development packages.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Select Committee's recommendations for transitional support, at paragraph 30, and its suggested seven-year duration. I would like to record my support for objective 1 status for Northern Ireland, parts of Wales, South Yorkshire, Cornwall and Merseyside.
Without continued access to EU structural funds, the ability of the various partners—such as local authorities, training and enterprise councils, the voluntary sector, trade unions and businesses—will be severely hampered from meeting not only our own local and regional regeneration aspirations but those aspirations of the UK Government and the EU. Therefore, I urge the Government, in their negotiations with the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, to press for a package of reforms that will maintain the maximum level of aid to Britain's traditional industrial areas, and to look favourably on us when deciding the allocation of discretionary funds made available to national Governments.
The job of regeneration in the regions and sub-regions is not complete. To reach completion, we need the stability brought about by the maintenance and fair distribution of European structural funds.
8.46 pm
Mr. David Stewart: I welcome the opportunity to add my brief remarks to this vital debate. I wish to concentrate on two matters. First, I wish to refer to the future of objective 1 funding within Europe generally and the UK specifically, particularly in the light of the Commission's well-known statement about strictly applying the criterion for objective 1—per capita gross domestic product being below 75 per cent. of the EU average. Secondly, I wish to refer to the special case for the highlands and islands in terms of sparsity of population.
The highlands and islands is perhaps unique as the last unspoilt area of Europe—that was perhaps reflected by the visit of the Chairman of the Select Committee to my constituency, a visit which I very much welcomed. I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) who perhaps stole my thunder by arguing very competently about sparsity and

1475
low wages in the highlands. Perhaps that shows that peace has broken out tonight between Labour and the Scottish National party—not in other debates, but certainly in this one.
As a highlander, I am familiar with the issues of sparsity and low pay. The area is peripheral to the rest of Europe, but forms part of the northern rim of Europe, along with Finland and Sweden. It has high transport costs and unemployment. It is an area larger than Belgium, but has a population less than one third that of Brussels.
The impact of structural funds in the highlands and islands can be traced back to the 1970s, when the area had objective 5b funding status and then, latterly, objective 1. Over the past nine years, more than £240 million has been pumped into the highland economy—from the Mallaig harbour development to the dry dock at the Barmac oil fabrication yard, which will allow the oil fabrication industry in my area to compete in Europe in the manufacture of floating production vessels.
Objective 1 funding is a vital factor in the development of the funicular programme, which will allow a new rail link in the Cairngorms and 12-month-a-year tourism—a great boost to the area. The two main goals for objective 1 within the highlands and islands are, first, the achievement of external cohesion—that is, to pull up the economic performance of the area compared to the EU average—and, secondly, the achievement of internal cohesion, or reducing the disparities throughout the highlands and islands. Objective 1 funding has been a powerful catalyst to stimulate additional investment in the highlands and islands. It has been a great success and hon. Members need not merely take my word for it as independent assessment of all the projects has shown that more than 90 per cent. had either high or medium effectiveness. It has created more than 1,800 jobs in my area, which has been a particular boost to vulnerable and fragile rural areas.
I must touch on some of the threats and opportunities facing the highlands and islands, which will be familiar to many hon. Members with rural areas in their constituencies. The first is food prices, which are 8 per cent. higher in rural than in urban areas—in remote island communities, they can be as much as a quarter higher than in urban areas. Petrol and transport costs are also a great burden and can be up to 20 per cent. higher than in the central belt in Scotland, which reflects the limited competition and a lack of economies of scale.
Unemployment is another big threat. For example, 50 per cent. of those unemployed in the western isles are long-term unemployed. The new earnings survey recently showed that earnings in my area are 14 per cent. below the Scottish average and 23 per cent. below the UK average.
We have, therefore, a combination of a higher cost of living and low incomes. It is a double whammy and it is a recipe for poverty, poor housing and depopulation. However, there are also great opportunities, which I must briefly stress. We have a first-class environment. Two thirds of the sites of special scientific interest are in my area and one third of the highlands and islands is a national scenic area. We have a high-quality environment, which is a key factor in the promotion of the area. Also, we have new technology—that great weapon to defeat the problems of distance. We have the university of the
1476
Highlands and Islands, which will offer higher education to all, from the crofter in Barra to the chartered accountant in Inverness. We have the beauty of tele-medicine, so doctors in Inverness can interview patients in Skye. We have tremendous opportunities in the resource base: forestry, fresh water and hydro-electricity. Inverness in my constituency is the world centre for the development of wave power. The area has the opportunities; it merely needs the economic wherewithal to exploit them.
I welcome the recommendation of the Trade and Industry Select Committee that the highlands and islands should be treated on a par with other sparsely populated areas within the northern rim. I also welcome the Government's report on that issue. The highlands and islands are doubly disadvantaged. The area has a low gross domestic product. The figures announced today by the Office for National Statistics show that it is below 78 per cent. of the average GDP in the UK. If that were factored into a European context, I estimate that it would be around 76 per cent. of the European average.
The area also has a sparse population—less than 10 people per square kilometre. Apart from Finland and Sweden, no other area in Europe touches that figure. In addition, we have 90 inhabited islands, and that adds extra social and economic difficulties. That has been reflected in a wider context as article 299 of the treaty of Amsterdam refers to the problems of islands. I understand that the European Parliament will be discussing sparsity in a debate on Monday.
Finally, I warmly welcome this first-class report. It advances a strong case about the range of flexibility, the threshold of objective 1 eligibility and the broader criteria for the new objective 2. The next six months of negotiation in Europe will be tough. The report provides a thorough, thoughtful and welcome addition to the debate.
8.52 pm
Dr. Desmond Turner: Perhaps you may be wondering, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what a nice boy representing a south-coast seat is doing in this debate, which has been so heavily dominated by the north. The answer is simple. If my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) has visited Brighton—perhaps he has been there for the conference—he will have seen the elegant Regency facades and might have assumed that it is a fairly prosperous place. However, if one looks behind the facades, one finds tremendous poverty. The truth is that Brighton and Hove is a poor place.
I will not enter into a competition, saying, "I'm poorer than thee, lad." That would be silly. However, I want to establish that all the indicators put the area on a par with just about every area whose representatives have spoken tonight and which enjoy objective 2 funding. The difference is that we have never had a penny piece of European structural funding although we have the same difficulties. There are several reasons for that, the major ones being the inflexibility of the present set of statistical criteria that govern European structural funds, which the previous Government never seriously questioned, and the fact that no one made a case for Brighton and Hove. We had three Tory Members of Parliament. My opponent at the general election, who lost his seat to me after 27 years, woke up a year before the election to the fact that Brighton had an unemployment problem. I do not remember him uttering a squeak about it for years before.

1477
Brighton has never been a recognised manufacturing centre, but it had manufacturing industry and now has virtually none. We used to build railway engines—I do not expect that many people know that. In the past 20 years, we have lost thousands of engineering jobs. That is a sector of our employment which has been wiped out and it is why we have some of the worst long-term male unemployment in the country. That is why we are one of the 17 pathfinder areas for the new deal in communities. I have not checked the list, but I strongly suspect that the other 16 currently enjoy either objective 1 or 2 European structural funding. We have had nothing, so we have been unable to create new jobs to fill the spaces on our brown-field industrial estates where the jobs have simply gone. We are claiming not to be poorer than thou, but to be in the same league and we want an opportunity to access similar support.
I shall give a few statistics to justify my case. Unemployment in Brighton and Hove is 7 per cent. compared with a national average of 5 per cent. and a regional average of 3 per cent. However, it is up to 30 per cent. in some wards of our city. The unemployment is concentrated in estates, which is why we have the new deal for communities. Our long-term unemployment puts us sixth out of the 354 local authorities in the United Kingdom—I will bet that not many people knew that, but it is important to us. Our poor housing and rough sleepers put us 35th out of the 354; on poverty we are 60th; and, for the numbers dependent on income support, we are 35th. Our crime levels are high and our wages low. The average wage is £30 less than in Liverpool, which is an objective 1 area, and £55 less than the average for the south-east. However, our cost of living is not low but among the highest in the country outside of London. So, we think that, in principle, we have a good case for being included in European Union structural funding. That has been denied us because we have slipped through the statistical net. Under NUTS 2, we were lumped with the whole of Sussex and Surrey. As an objective 3 area, we were still lost.
Despite the criticisms that we have heard tonight of the proposed criteria and regulations for structural funding, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on her work to secure increased flexibility. That has enabled HMS Falmouth to line up for objective 1 status and has allowed Brighton and Hove to be recognised as an objective 3 area in its own right, so that we can bid for objective 2 funding.
I shall not press the case for that now, as one has already been prepared—the Minister will receive a copy of the document very soon, if she has not already—and it stands on its own merits. Provided that in the inal negotiations for the new regulations we do not slip back and lose any flexibility, I am confident that Brighton and Hove has a very good case—which is not to say that I am confident of securing the funding.
With the new flexibility, many urban areas, including Brighton and Hove, will meet the objective 2 criteria, such as whether the rate of long-term unemployment is higher than the Community average and whether there are high levels of poverty, a particularly damaged environment, a high crime rate or a low level of education among the population. Under the proposals, an area has to meet only one of those criteria, and we score on four out of the five. If that is not flexibility, I do not know what is; I suspect that if hon. Members read the small print of the regulations, they will find greater flexibility than they had imagined.
1478
I am grateful to the Minister for her work to date. I hope that she will be able to complete it on the same lines, to ensure that, at the end of the process, we who have never previously had any help can put in our bids.
9.1 pm
Mrs. Janet Dean: Hon. Members have concentrated on their own areas, whether urban or rural, and I shall be no exception. Burton upon Trent, the largest town in my constituency, has objective 2 status, and the most northerly ward—Weaver ward—receives help under objective 5.
I wholeheartedly support the Committee's view that the new objective 2 arrangements should apply at or below ward level. It is essential that structural funds can be targeted on real need, which is often hidden in pockets of apparent affluence—unemployment and deprivation may be hidden when the statistics apply to county, district or travel-to-work areas.
Before I deal with the severity of the problem in Burton upon Trent, I shall reflect on Staffordshire as a whole. It has been said that Cornwall is an exception, but there were strong arguments that, with a population of more than 1 million, Staffordshire should have become a NUTS 2 area. The county's average GDP per head over the three years from 1993 to 1995 was 77.3 per cent., a figure that seems to be falling. Staffordshire, therefore, provides a good example of why the strict application of the 75 per cent. rule is wrong.
There is, naturally, disappointment that Staffordshire has not qualified for objective 1 status, but it is important that we look at the needs of individual areas, both urban and rural, in the county. The current state of agriculture makes it essential that every effort is made to secure structural funding for the affected areas of need. The Weaver ward in my constituency is part of the Staffordshire-Derbyshire objective 5b area, demonstrating the case that areas that are below county level or that cross administrative boundaries should continue to be eligible for such funding.
Burton upon Trent is a traditional manufacturing town best known for its brewing industry. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Burton saw high job losses in its traditional employment base of brewing, engineering, rubber, mining and energy industries. Sadly, Burton has never been included in an assisted area, although neighbouring, more affluent areas, have been included because of their travel-to-work areas. Since Burton has a free-standing travel-to-work area, it has never benefited. I hope that in the review of assisted areas, the Government will look at real need and that Burton upon Trent will be accepted for inclusion.
Although it does not benefit from assisted area status, the difficulties that face the area were recognised and objective 2 status was awarded for the 1994–99 period. That, together with money from the single regeneration budget granted for the inner wards of the town, has helped regeneration to begin. For example, we are proud of the Centre of Productivity and Efficiency that is designed to help business, both locally and regionally, to develop. There is a great need for the good work that has already started to be allowed to continue.
Burton upon Trent continues to have one of the highest rates of unemployment in the west midlands. The current level is 7.4 per cent. However, the unemployment rate in

1479
a number of inner wards is still in excess of 10 per cent. Burton has a higher rate of long-term unemployment than the rest of Staffordshire, with 21.4 per cent of all the unemployed having been out of work for over a year.
Industrial employment in the area has fallen by one third from 1984 to 1995, but the percentage of the work force employed in industry remains well in excess of the United Kingdom average. Therefore, there are concerns that there may be a continuing fall in the jobs for industrial workers. Reduction in industrial employment has been only partly matched by an increase in service jobs, many of which, as other hon. Members have said, have been part-time.
There needs to be more diversification of employment opportunities. Burton has the largest single grouping of deprived wards in Staffordshire and within the west midlands shire counties as a whole. Eight of the town's 11 wards have more deprivation than the national average. Over a quarter of households in one ward have an income of less than £5,000 a year. Just under a quarter of all school children in Burton receive free school meals. One of the most frightening indicators of deprivation is the infant mortality rate, which is three times greater than the national average. On most measures, Burton shows high levels of deprivation. A recent survey of private sector housing stock showed that 14 per cent of dwellings in Burton were unfit for habitation.
We often hear of problems in our inner cities and, of course, there is much to be done there, but there are problems in some of our inner towns such as Burton upon Trent, which are hidden by the wider statistics. Structural funds have acted as a catalyst. They have triggered investment and already created over 1,000 jobs in the Burton area. Many people have worked hard. Local government, with its partners in industry, has worked hard to regenerate the area and Burton is beginning to be transformed into an attractive place to relocate business. I must emphasise that because, when one expresses the deprivation of an area, one can sometimes give the impression that it is not a good place to live and work. I believe that Burton and the Burton constituency in East Staffordshire district is a good place, but it needs help.
In order to build on the achievements of recent years, it is essential that Burton retains its objective 2 status. Therefore, I welcome the Select Committee's report and the Government's commitment to arguing that structural funds should be targeted at the pockets of deprivation such as there are in Burton upon Trent.
9.8 pm
Mr. David Lepper: I am grateful for the opportunity to supplement the arguments already advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) about the particular needs of the Brighton and Hove area. Before I do so, I welcome the comments about simplifying the bureaucracy involved in bidding for European funds, especially in their delivery.
As my hon. Friend said, Brighton does not yet receive structural funds, but we receive funds through community initiatives—Interreg, the safer cities programme, the urban initiative, and the European structural fund. There is great rejoicing in the streets when the announcement of those funds first appears in the local press, although
1480
probably not as great as the rejoicing in the streets of Falmouth and Camborne. However, we then face a long wait before we see any signs of the funding for the youth club or community centre, whatever it might be, and disillusionment begins to set in.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown said, we are not currently eligible for structural funds. The community initiative money has proved beneficial, but it has not helped to solve the structural problems of deprivation and unemployment in our area. I welcome the flexibility that is given to member states in deciding the criteria for the new objective 2, and I can offer my hon. Friend the Minister any number to choose from, all of which I am confident that Brighton and Hove would satisfy.
I shall not repeat points already made by my hon. Friend, but I wish to point out that we come top of the list for homelessness and numbers of rough sleepers. We have 22,500 houses in multiple occupation; Birmingham, which is four times our size, has 5,000.
High levels of unemployment have already been mentioned. In the depths of the most recent recession, in the central ward in my constituency—the Regency ward—male unemployment reached 33 per cent., and it is still in double figures. That ward will be known to any hon. Member who has visited Brighton for a conference, because it contains the conference centre. We have the third highest level of long-term unemployment outside London. Only Liverpool and Birmingham surpass us.
We have not been able to address certain structural weaknesses in our economy through the support that we have received from central Government—although that is becoming better targeted through the new deal for communities—or from European funding. More than a third of the population in the Brighton and Hove area live in wards that are among the most deprived 10 per cent. in England on the indices of local deprivation. More than a quarter of our primary and secondary school children are eligible for free school meals.
Those are some of the indications of the poverty in what many people still regard as a prosperous part of the south-east. Indeed, even in the most prosperous, suburban and leafy ward in my constituency, 25 per cent. of the households are eligible for housing benefit.
I do not wish to dwell only on the reasons why our case for the new objective 2 structural funds should be considered sympathetically, because I wish to draw attention to the potential of the Brighton and Hove area. We have high levels of unemployment, poverty and deprivation, but we also have two universities and a college of technology. Despite the image that is sometimes presented of south-coast towns as places to which people retire, more than 60 per cent. of the population of the Brighton and Hove local authority area are under 45, so we have a relatively young population.
We now need help to help ourselves to realise the potential of our area. Before I entered the House, I chaired—with my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin)—the local Brighton and Hove regeneration partnership, which played a key role in bringing together business, the local council and the voluntary sector to address the problems that have been described tonight.
We are beginning to make progress with the aid of city challenge funding, and the town is increasingly becoming wired up. In fact, we claim to be the most wired town in

1481
the country. We have developed an innovation centre at the university of Sussex to help new, high-tech businesses. We want to extend that centre, which has a 100 per cent. occupancy rate, but, as firms develop, they need somewhere to move to. Too many business premises in our area are old-fashioned, and do not meet the needs of modern high-tech industry. We need help to provide places in which new young industries can grow, so that they can stay in the area in which they first began to grow.
We need help to develop our transport infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) will—if he is called to speak—have more to say about the need to develop that infrastructure for our part of the coastal strip. The Brighton and Hove area also contains what is probably the largest brown-field site in the south-east of England—Shoreham harbour. The lack of central or European funding to help us to develop that area has left it undeveloped. Its huge potential for creating jobs remains unlocked.
I hope that, when the Minister receives the document that has been drawn to her attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown, she will carefully consider the case it makes. I hope that she will help Brighton and Hove, and Hastings further along the coast, to help ourselves to overcome the deprivation
from which we suffer.
9.16 pm
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: When I introduce myself as the Labour Member for Hastings and Rye, the usual reaction, even from Ministers, is, "How amazing. How did you do that?" In a sense, that is a compliment, but it is also rather worrying. What people are saying is that they think of Hastings as a genteel, well-heeled, south-coast town, living off a Victorian splendour, where families flock for balmy days on the beach. It is that sort of town, when people can get there, which is another problem in itself. It is a unique town, and I am addicted to it. I have always lived there, and I go back every night, which shows how addicted I am.
However, there is another side to Hastings, and that side replicates much of what my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) have said about Brighton. They said that they would not claim, "We are more hard up than you." I, however, am going to say that Hastings is more hard up than the constituency of almost everyone who has spoken in the debate. I scanned the unemployment figures as my hon. Friends were speaking, and I have not yet found an area in which unemployment is higher than in Hastings. Our 9.6 per cent. unemployment is devastating, and it is the 87th highest level of unemployment for males in the whole country.
That is not the image that people have of Hastings. Yet we also have deprivation and poor housing. I stood outside a hotel in Hastings this morning holding up "Turning the Tide" for the press. That document contains the objectives of Hastings and Brighton, and we need the Government to take notice of it. We need extra assistance.
Perhaps it was the decades of neglect by previous Governments that made Hastings decide last year to have a Labour Member of Parliament. This year, it has for the first time decided to have a Labour council. The people of Hastings also look across the channel, believing that the town's importance in European history might be
1482
reflected by the benefits that European Union membership could bring through structural funding. That is why the restructuring of structural funds may prove a lifeline to my constituency.
Although it is only 60 miles from London, the rail journey is close on two hours, and the road journey is often longer. Our hopes for an electrification of the Hastings-to-Ashford line were dashed when Connex failed to gain an extension of its franchise. Only a few weeks ago, we were dealt a body blow when the integrated transport review denied us the A21 improvements and the bypass which is so essential to the regeneration of our town. What other seaside town has the main road along its seafront, choking both visitors and residents alike? We must wait, and I am sure that we shall do so optimistically, for the Government to decide to go ahead with that important bypass.
In the past few weeks, the town's largest employer, Philips, closed up shop. Although it is fair to say that Philips made it clear that neither Government policy nor the strong pound determined that decision, the fact is that several hundred jobs have been lost in an already impoverished economy. Hastings now has about the highest unemployment and lowest wages in the south. Wage levels are little above half the regional average. That is a fair argument for saying that the minimum wage should have no ill effects.
The area is rich in human resources. Voluntary organisations are paramount in assisting with the problems that exist. In partnership with the statutory agencies and the commercial world, they work hard in planning economic advance. The Hastings Trust led by Christine Goldschmidt, the 1066 Enterprise spearheaded by John Cossen, and the new Labour council led by Richard Stevens, are working tirelessly and single-mindedly to bring about regeneration.
We are grateful for the help received through the assisted area status and through successive successful single regeneration budget bids. Full advantage has been taken. Indeed, assisted area status has brought some £3 million to the town since 1993, and that has locked in a further £37 million of industrial investment. The single regeneration budget has produced £14 million, which has generated £90 million from other sectors. About 1,000 jobs have been created as a consequence. Therefore, we make good use of investment. Despite all that, there remains a structural weakness in the economy, just as there is in Brighton along the coast.
The purpose of this speech is not to hold out a begging bowl. Hastings is a proud town. It is to say that poverty exists, not just in northern towns, but in southern climes such as Hastings, Brighton and elsewhere. When three of the wards in my town have household social security claimant rates of 52 per cent., 49 per cent. and 48 per cent., that is real poverty. When we hold the record for the highest number of suicides in young men in the country, that suggests that the area is close to despair. There may be a north-south divide; there is certainly a south-south divide between prosperous Surrey, which is included in our GNP figures, and impoverished Hastings and Brighton. We are the poor relations of a rich family.
Shortly, Hastings, together with Brighton and Hove, will make a joint bid, entitled "Turning the Tide", for objective 2 status. I hope that these comments will help the Minister to understand why the claims of

1483
southern towns such as Hastings and Brighton are equally, if not more, valid than those of other parts of the country for this special status. The new urban strand within the objective 2 now gives an opportunity to aid not only areas that have faced traumatic industrial decline, but areas that have slipped into an abyss of poverty through decades of neglect. I am confident that the Government will listen to these pleas. The inhabitants of Hastings and St. Leonards must not be ragged-trousered philanthropists any longer.
9.23 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Last but not least comes Lowestoft—a long-standing pocket of high unemployment and deprivation at Britain's most easterly point.
There is every sense in amalgamating objectives 5b and 2, because, under the current system, at the last round Lowestoft applied for objective 2 and ended up with 5b as the only way of meeting the overwhelming case that was presented. How can a town of 70,000 be a rural area? Strange things happen in the European Union. Of the East Anglian 5b areas, Lowestoft has the best record of submitting projects and accessing funds. However, as so many hon. Members have said this evening, the job of regeneration is far from complete, and it is essential that the designation for structural funds continues for Lowestoft.
I am pleased with the strands that have been identified for objective 2. I am pleased that fishing is still one of them. The decline in fishing was the reason why Lowestoft received 5b funding last time. If Lowestoft, as the second largest fishing port in England, with all the problems that face fishing communities, does not fit the criteria, I do not know where the criteria can apply.
I hope that the strands can be considered in combination, because Lowestoft is also an urban area facing economic and social restructuring. We have lost all our shipbuilding, our food canning factories, a coach works and a shoe factory. The oil and gas industry, which has seen us through in recent years, is now downsizing in a dramatic way. None of those industries has been replaced.
The Select Committee in its report, and the Government, oppose the Commission's proposal for consistency or coterminosity between the structural fund areas and our national assisted area status. It is right to reserve that flexibility. However, in some areas there will be a good case for coterminosity. Lowestoft and its neighbour Great Yarmouth have only five miles of countryside between them, but the previous Government awarded assisted area status to Great Yarmouth, not Lowestoft. Lowestoft but not Yarmouth was awarded European status, possibly as an admission of the mistake in not giving Lowestoft assisted area status.
Any review must take Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth together. They are of a similar size. They are close together. They are a long way from anywhere else, out on the east coast, surrounded by a rural area. They both have high, long-term, structural unemployment, much higher than the unemployment in the hinterland. They are both ports with poor transport links, and they both have involvement in the oil and gas industry. Many of the businesses are interlinked. Many businesses have a
1484
presence in each town. People travel to work between the two communities. There has to be a single strategy for both.
We need flexibility, so that objective 2 can cover relatively small areas, as the existing objective 2 cannot. I went to Brussels and lobbied for objective 2 for Lowestoft last time. It met every criterion for objective 2 status, but it was not big enough. We were told that objective 2 had to be awarded to larger areas, and that East Anglia was considered relatively prosperous. Yet within that relatively prosperous area there are unemployment black spots, Lowestoft being the main one.
Last time, the Commission did not favour a black spots approach. It did not believe that regional assistance could be that precise or benefit specified areas. Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth are isolated from the rest of the country and any other areas that might benefit. People ask how else a town such as Lowestoft is to be helped. How are pockets of long-standing unemployment to be dealt with unless we use the structural funds to which we believe we are entitled? The report is right to argue on page 47, as the Government do, that the Commission should not take raw unemployment figures, but should consider other measures of economic difficulty.
The key statement in the report is that regeneration requires continuity. So many of us have argued tonight that we need that continuity. Lowestoft continues to need the European structural funds.
I wonder whether the Minister can take up an important point that has made life difficult in making the best of structural funds. Quite properly, when one submits a project, one has to be specific about the job outcomes. It is difficult to create jobs unless the private sector is involved, yet private sector money cannot be matched by European money. That is a problem for us when it comes to transport. We want to improve our port and our rail links. Railways and ports are almost all private. Associated British Ports is a private company. Railtrack is a private company. It is difficult for those companies to provide their money as match funding for Europe.
Because in this country transport systems, including ports, are largely privatised, we are at a disadvantage compared to other European countries, which can use structural funds for transport infrastructure improvements. We cannot reverse the privatisation, and have no plans to do so, but we need to argue in Europe that, because those privatised companies fulfil a public function—an essential transport function—when bids are put together, the money that those companies can bring to the project should be able to be matched by European funding.
I shall end on that point. I have made my plea for Lowestoft, but I hope that it will help other constituencies if we can tweak those regulations.
9.29 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: The Select Committee's report is extremely helpful. The subject was clearly introduced by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and it has spawned an interesting debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said in his helpful contribution, we are all basically on the same side. We are all informing the Minister and encouraging her to go out and negotiate for Britain's interests, which include getting the largest possible chunk of resources for this country, in some recompense for imbalances elsewhere.

1485
Of course, there were differences of emphasis, for which no apology is needed. It is right that, under our constitution, Members of Parliament have the duty to represent their constituents, to express their pride in their constituency and to explain the needs of their constituency. That was done by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and rightly so. Their speeches revealed not only some of the tensions that are bound to pass into the debate and that will have to be brokered into and through Europe, but some of the underlying concerns that serve to unify us.
I found it instructive to hear the serious speeches made by hon. Members representing constituencies on the south coast of England, those representing urban areas and those representing rural areas. The House knows that I come from a rural background. I am closely involved with Action with Communities in Rural England, and I see that as part of the debate. It would be a foolish member of any party who came to the House and boasted of having no pockets of deprivation in his constituency—to some extent, all our constituencies contain such areas. The question is how we organise their interests and balance them against each other under a principle.
It appears to me that the concern expressed by many hon. Members related as much to issues of relative deprivation and poverty in the middle of affluence as to objective measures. That concern was clearly expressed by hon. Members representing south coast constituencies, and the conditions which they described can be seen in wards in my own constituency. It is uncomfortable to live in such areas, cut off from ready access to higher education, transport links and jobs.
How do we put our concerns together into a policy, bearing in mind the fact that Europe has to change its policy under extremely severe constraints? Let us start with those constraints and with a health warning. It is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, as it was by the Select Committee, that there are important constraints on the EU budget and that they are closely linked to the mounting requirement for the EU to take seriously the issue of enlargement and to finance it as it develops.
It is worth pointing out that any problems of deprivation experienced in our constituencies, wherever they may be, pale into insignificance in comparison with the real poverty and deprivation that characterise most of the countries applying for membership. If we think that some areas in this country should have objective 1 status, those countries should be objective zero. Interestingly enough, when Germany was shattered after world war two, the catch phrase used was "hour zero". That betokens a degree of hope, because, from that shattered state, Germany rebuilt itself and became a successful industrial nation.
There are constraints, which it is necessary coherently to broker and resolve. Nobody has seriously argued that we should not try to target the European funds available better. One point which was not sufficiently stressed is that not all public funding is necessarily distributed at a European level. We are discussing European structural funds, but there is the possibility of public funding from outside Europe. We can debate at another time how that should be balanced and where it should come from. The Select Committee suggested—I agree with it—that we should not use the same template for the state aids map
1486
and the European assisted area map because we would deprive ourselves of flexibility, which is what everyone wants the Minister to secure for us.
Continuity is also important. We do not want those who have had support or who have reached different stages in developing schemes—even if they are not included in the current programme—to be cut off at the knees and suddenly to find that they have no support at all.
The final general criterion is common sense. There is no point in pushing a doctrine derived from Brussels beyond the bounds of political acceptability—that is why the concept of the safety net is so much to be welcomed—or practicability. That is why it is important that the criteria are defined reasonably flexibly. I welcome the tone of the debate and—if I may anticipate her—the Minister's readiness to take those messages aboard.
My next remarks are less congenial but need to be made. They particularly concern the rural areas of England. We welcome the fact that political support is clearly developing on all sides for the maintenance of aid for the Scottish highlands, on the analogy of northern Europe, and for Northern Ireland, for important political and objective economic reasons. However, there is a danger that there will be a significant withdrawal of support for the rural areas of England through the winding up of the separate 5b objective.
Before the change of Government, I was the Minister responsible for the agricultural portions of 5b, and I realised its ability to target precise, small-scale and wider rural problems. That was at a time when agriculture was doing relatively well. In or near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I toured the camping barns scheme. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), I went to see the work of the South-West Horticulture 2000 initiative, which was trying to bring together the wonderful production of her county and Devon. There is tension, not only because of the suggestion that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales may benefit, but because English rural areas under severe pressure may lose out. In addition, despite the hon. Lady's welcome for objective 1, which I understand, there is a danger that Cornwall and Devon, which have not traditionally worked together but were integrated in the South-West Horticulture 2000 project, may now be given separate objective statuses.
Ms Atherton: The hon. Gentleman is aware that, if Cornwall achieves objective 1 status, Devon would be well placed to achieve objective 2. We are working with our colleagues in Devon because we want to pull together as a peninsula. What is good for Cornwall will, in the long term, be good for Devon.
Mr. Boswell: I welcome that. I want merely to identify a potential cause of friction through differential treatment. If that can be resolved, so much the better.
We may be able to learn the lessons of flexibility and the virtues of comparatively small-scale, targeted interventions, partnerships and local initiatives. Those are important points which have been stressed by Members on all sides of the House. We hope that we can include them in the new structures and regulations.
Another point which came across strongly—I reiterate it from my own experience—is the need to streamline decision making on the one hand and bureaucracy on the

1487
other. We had much difficulty launching 5b in the south-west. It generated a lot of ill will initially because it was very slow to get off the ground and people had to become familiar with the provision. It was complicated and, as challenge funding, was not guaranteed in the traditional manner of agricultural grants; we had to come to terms with that difference. Anything that can make the process simpler, within the bounds of accountability, is very welcome.
We wish the hon. Lady and Her Majesty's Government well in supporting British interests during the negotiations. We are fortunate in having had this constructive report and debate. However, it will be impossible to satisfy everyone—even all hon. Members—and, in fairness, I think that both the House and the Government should accept that constraint on their achievements.
9.40 pm
The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I agree with the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, that this has been a very good debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made contributions of an enormously high standard which have really taken the issue forward. I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate for their words of encouragement. Such a united view will strengthen the Government's hand in the negotiations.
The hon. Member for Daventry and practically every hon. Member who has spoken this evening commended the Select Committee on producing an excellent report. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on the elegant and thorough way in which he presented the Select Committee's report and case. The House is indebted to the Select Committee for the way in which it has produced the report and the opportunity that it has presented to have this debate this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood outlined the importance of the structural funds and what they mean. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) also spoke passionately on that subject. For many people in our country, the structural funds and how they are used in their areas are a manifestation of the European Union. I am very pleased that the Committee's report broadly supports the Government's position on several key points. For example, the report refers to the need to contain the cost of the funds, the need for some flexibility for member states in selecting eligible areas under objective 2, and the treatment of sparsely populated regions in the United Kingdom.
Very importantly—this has been a theme of the debate—the report highlights the need for increased simplification, which is a key area of negotiation. We made considerable process in that direction during our presidency of the European Union. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) made that point when they spoke about the need for simplicity. It is important that the reforms should lead to fewer objectives, less bureaucracy, a broader partnership and a much
1488
simplified system of payments. Hon. Members also referred to cohesion funding, and I agree with the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood.
The Committee researched the report thoroughly. It took evidence from a wide selection of those with an interest in this reform, including several local representative organisations such as the Local Government Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and some local partnerships. A great strength of the report is that it is so comprehensive.
I gave evidence to the Committee in May in order to set out the Government's view. The Government replied to the Select Committee report by way of a memorandum, and I want to cover a number of those points today. Since the publication of the Agenda 2000 communication in July 1997, we have said that the reform of the structural and cohesion funds must be affordable and fair to all existing and future member states, including the UK and its regions. It must deliver an outcome that is durable, sustainable and capable of applying in the next programming period and beyond that into 2006 without increasing costs unmanageably or introducing inequalities.
Affordability must be set in the context of current levels of spending and of the prospect of an enlarged union, which was a point raised by the hon. Member for Daventry. That inevitably means that, at some point, the present 15 member states must expect to sustain reductions in both coverage and
receipts.
Miss McIntosh: Given that Britain receives 9 per cent. of the structural funds and the fact that, although we are a net contributor, we are now the fourth poorest member state and have been described in one report today as bottom of the league, does the Minister accept that there should be a limit to the reduction that we are prepared to accept?
Mrs. Roche: Let me explain to the hon. Lady—I am aware of her experience in these matters—that that is why the Government are taking such a rigorous view in the negotiations. We accept that reductions will have to be made, but our position is that they will have to be on the basis of fairness to the United Kingdom. The Committee takes a very sensible view that it is probably better done sooner than later and that the programming period after 1999 should prepare member states for eventual enlargement. It also makes the important point that it must be fair. Cuts in population coverage must be proportionate across member states, everything else being relatively equal, and no member state should receive more per capita than it does now.
We agree that the Commission's proposals, which would increase funding in real terms are difficult to reconcile with other principles within the proposals such as concentrating or reducing the areas that receive funding. The Select Committee also covered such issues. That is the basis for our insistence on the structural and cohesion funds element of the budget being kept well below 0.46 per cent. of EU gross national product to avoid the possibility, pointed out quite correctly by the Select Committee, of more money for fewer people. We must absolutely avoid that outcome.
Conceivably, there could be a case for objective 1 if we had to accept a position where two thirds of the structural funds' coverage—and possibly the money—

1489
went to objective 1 areas or if, following the Select Committee's suggestion, objective 1 was limited to the poorest 20 per cent. of regions. If it meant that the budget was reduced commensurately, that would be welcome, but we could not support a situation that led to increased intensities of support.
The Government support the Select Committee's view that strict application of the 75 per cent. GDP criterion might cause the UK some difficulties, but that is not what the Commission proposes. The draft regulations already specify some exceptions, such as ultra-peripheral regions and objective 6 sparsely populated areas whether or not they meet the 75 per cent. GDP criterion. In our view, that shows that GDP is not the only indicator of genuine need, and we need to look very carefully at the totality of objective 1 and its eligibility criteria. This is our basis for arguing, as we have done consistently, for a sparsity of population criterion to address the needs of areas such as the highland and islands. We welcome the Committee's support for them to be treated on a par with member states in a similar position, such as Finland and Sweden. We heard powerful speeches in this regard from my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) and from the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan).
We welcomed the Cardiff Council's commitment to assisting the peace process in Northern Ireland, particularly its recognition that the European Union
"should continue to play an active part in promoting lasting peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland".
Much of the discussion this evening has been on objective 2. The Committee identified correctly the difficulties in interpreting the Commission's proposals for objective 2. Unifying the industrial, rural, urban and fisheries areas within a single objective 2 would advance the aim of simplification. That point has been made. Unfortunately, however, it could also impose complex and apparently artificial distinctions that would automatically exclude from consideration some areas of need. We are working hard to ensure that all strands are dealt with properly. The rural strand was rightly discussed by the hon. Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and for Daventry. The fisheries strand was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Norfolk and by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who both made important points.
In the negotiations, the Government continue to emphasise the importance of flexibility to target areas of need, even if those are concealed within relatively prosperous areas. That was a recurrent theme of this evening's debate, powerfully expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean). The need for flexibility was emphasised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Eccles, for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). It is important that we make it clear that in the UK we need the flexibility to target funds where they are most needed.
I am grateful for the Committee's recognition of the value of the safety net. It limits the loss of coverage for objective 2 and 5b areas to no more than one third and is an important achievement for a number of UK areas. As we gain a better understanding of the process, the benefits of the Government's achievement in establishing the safety net will become apparent.
1490
One of the strengths of the past few months has been the contribution of local partnerships and organisations in shaping the proposals and the negotiations. We have worked together to present a united and coherent case in Brussels. I thank all hon. Members, Members of the European Parliament and members of local authorities throughout the country who have worked so hard with me and my officials. I take this opportunity to thank all my officials too, who have worked tremendously hard in the Department and in our permanent representation in Brussels. I am grateful for all the work that they have done. The importance of delivering for the UK as a whole was pointed out by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins).
In developing UK policy and the positions for the negotiations, we have held a number of local, regional and national consultations since the publication of the Commission's proposals and have sought to reflect the views gathered along the way in the on-going discussions. I am grateful for all the participation that has taken place. We must make sure that the united front continues.
The Government agree with the Committee that bureaucracy surrounding the funds should not be a bar to access for any organisation, however small. In the negotiations to date—initially this was under the United Kingdom presidency—we have been able to secure agreement to some of the general principles that support the universally agreed aim of simplification of the funds: making them more effective and, most important, better value for money. That was an important first step in a reform proposal as radical as the one that we are discussing. We should not underestimate the scale of the task and of this particular achievement, given the divergent views across member states on the detail of the proposed negotiation.
The focus of the presidency earlier this year was primarily to simplify the administration of the funds. In this, we achieved a high level of consensus among member states. The informal meeting of EU Regional Policy Ministers in Glasgow in June achieved several important levels of agreement on a number of principles: the importance of job creation and employability and of regional competitiveness; the values of effective partnership between the Commission, national Governments and regional and local organisations, and of a clear definition of role for all of them; and the need to bring decision making as close as possible to the people it affects—that was very much a recurring theme of our debate this evening—in other words, more regional and local control over the structural funds delivery.
All of us want to protect the good name of the structural funds. We want the system to operate as democratically as possible. That is why the negotiations and discussions on simplification are so important. All those involved in the funds want to develop a less burdensome and more efficient system for their administration from the year 2000 onwards. It is clear that everybody wants to do that.
It is clear also that complex negotiations are ahead if we are to reach agreement on a fair and transparent system. A great deal more work has to be done, particularly on objective criteria, eligibility issues and finance, if we are to get the system right. There has been discussion this evening about the Community initiatives, which we know have led to some useful partnerships and have provided funds outside the objective areas. However, they have proved complicated to administer and they are not always

1491
the best way to address strategic issues. We have supported a reduction in their numbers. The mainstream objectives should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate activities currently included under Community initiatives. At present, there is still very little detail from the Commission about the three initiatives that are proposed, but they clearly must add value to the main objectives in terms of the structural funds.
The Cardiff Council set a deadline of March 1999 for agreement to be reached in the Council on the Agenda 2000 package, which of course goes wider than the structural funds. The deadline is important. As I have said, we recognise that much work will need to be done to achieve it. We will need to make every effort to ensure that it is met.
I am grateful to the Select Committee for its work and to all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have lent their support in such a positive and constructive way. It is clear that, in the months that lie ahead, we need to continue to work together so that a strong UK voice is heard. In that way we can get the right result for the United Kingdom as a whole.
9.58 pm
Mr. Berry: With the leave of the House, I first thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry for her comments and for the evidence that she and her officials gave to the Select Committee during its hearings. That evidence was extremely helpful and useful. I am naturally grateful, on behalf of my colleagues, for the kind remarks that all hon. Members have made about the Select Committee's report. More important have been the comments that individual Members made on specific aspects of this important issue.
In the final sentence of the first paragraph of the report, we said that the report was the Committee's first, but not necessarily its final, word on reform of the European structural funds. Whether hon. Members regard that as a promise or a threat is entirely up to them. It was a brief inquiry following concerns that arose at a meeting in Brussels this February. We may well return to the issue.
I was encouraged by the unanimity of hon. Members. It was of some significance that no one argued that his or her constituency should get less resources. All argued that there should be more, or at least the same, because of important social needs and the need for regeneration and tackling poverty. I will mull over that observation as I go home, because when there is unanimity on such an important point—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That for the remainder of the present Session of Parliament the House shall not sit on any Friday and the provision of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Standing Order No. 12 shall apply to all such Fridays.—[Mr. Allen.]

Disabled Access
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
10 pm
Mr. Don Touhig: I welcome this debate because it is another chance to highlight the problems faced by people with a physical or learning disability. Since I became president of Caerphilly Access, I have been impressed by the commitment and innovation showed by disabled and able-bodied members determined to raise public awareness of the problems that disabled people face. Like most people, I can walk unaided and I am not impaired, but the fact is that in Wales one in six people are impaired in some way. In the United Kingdom, it is one in eight. Access for the disabled is thus a matter of considerable importance to a significant number of people.
Like many people who work with, and on behalf of, disabled people, I welcome the initiatives that the Government have taken so far, notably the setting up of the disability rights task force. Steps are being taken to create a disability rights commission; and there is the planned implementation of part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 next October. However, the fact remains that many of the rights that able-bodied people enjoy and take for granted are denied to those who have an impairment.
Access to trains for those confined to wheelchairs is woefully inadequate in many parts of the country. At my nearest railway station at Pengam on the Valleys line, only one platform is suitable for wheelchair access. A disabled passenger who wanted to go to Cardiff by train would have to join the train travelling north to Rhymney and stay on it when it travelled all the way back to Cardiff. At another station on the same line, there is a ramp leading to the platform but there are steps at its top and bottom. My two examples are all too commonplace. On that line, only one station has full facilities for disabled people. The situation is unacceptable to every disabled person and it should be unacceptable to every able-bodied person.
I do not want to limit my remarks to transport, important though that is, but I want to touch on the implementation of regulations that affect buses and coaches. The time scale means that existing single-decker buses will not have to be wheelchair accessible until 2015. The date for double-deckers is 2017. If bus and coach operators are not required to make their vehicles fully wheelchair accessible sooner, the emphasis that is being placed on park-and-ride schemes will have a damaging impact on disabled people. Similarly, the proposed two-mile parking exclusion zone around the millennium dome will make the experience inaccessible to disabled people unless the transport network is fully accessible to them.
Even in our schools, disabled pupils are caused further distress by the lack of proper access. Local education authorities have a responsibility to provide facilities for disabled staff, and even for parents with physical disabilities, but astonishingly, there is no requirement to ensure that schools are properly accessible for disabled pupils.

1493
I am told that LEAs often say that they will provide facilities for disabled pupils when the need arises, but experience often shows that when need is established, the combination of a lack of funds and a lot of red tape means that very little is done.
Rightly, the education of our children is at the core of the Government's agenda, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will use her considerable influence to ensure that no child misses out on education because of a physical impairment.
Our disabled fellow citizens have conscientiously battled for years to gain the same rights as able-bodied citizens take for granted, but they have been, and continue to be, denied that equality because of lack of access—to transport, to education, to buildings, to public parks, to open spaces and in some cases to basic services.
For example, access to a telephone box may be denied because the telephone is out of reach or the booth is too narrow for a wheelchair. Access to buildings is denied because there are too many steps, no ramps, narrow doorways or no toilet facilities suitable for disabled people. Access to democracy too—access to the vote itself—is denied because of inaccessible polling booths and lack of adequate facilities in polling stations.
The disabled groups whose members I have talked to recognise that improving access is often a technical issue, and that technical solutions and financial resources are needed to put things right. Those solutions will be achieved only if local authorities become more proactive in devising and developing policies that will improve and promote greater access.
It is because local councils are the major providers of services in the community that they must not be allowed to ignore the crucial role that they have to play. I do not suggest for one moment that councils willingly ignore the problems faced by physically disabled people and those with learning difficulties. However, because of the many demands on them, unless we in the House and as a Government place responsibilities on them by statute, we will have only piecemeal solutions, different in different parts of the country.
For that reason I argue that it should be the duty of each local authority to enter into a contract with disabled people—a form of citizens charter that will guarantee that disabled people's needs are recognised and addressed. Local authorities must work in partnership with voluntary organisations and local disability groups.
A good example of that partnership approach—indeed, a role model for others—is the access group in my borough that I have already mentioned. Caerphilly Access, which has been working on behalf of disabled people for the past 10 years, has been innovative in bringing home to planners, engineers and architects the impact that their work can have on people with a physical disability. It has encouraged able-bodied people from local authorities' highways, planning and architects departments to sit in wheelchairs and try to get from, say, a major supermarket to a local bus or railway station.
The people involved have gained first-hand experience of how to negotiate all the obstacles that disabled people alone have to contend with when they try to journey through a busy town centre. That approach has helped those who have the responsibility for designing and constructing new buildings and for maintaining and developing our infrastructure to see the impact of their decisions on someone confined to a wheelchair.
1494
Those people now have a better understanding of some of the problems that plague disabled people every day of their lives, which the able-bodied usually do not even realise exist. More importantly, the objective of such an exercise is to ensure that access issues are taken into account by local authorities when policy decisions are made.
Caerphilly Access members regularly arrange site meetings with officials from the local council's highways department to look at such things as high kerbs, poorly installed dropped kerbs, and lamp standards set in the middle of pavements which prevent anyone in a wheelchair from passing by with safety.
Those initiatives underline the importance of partnership between voluntary groups campaigning for disabled people's rights and their local authorities. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will examine ways in which all local authorities might be required to appoint an officer working in partnership with the voluntary sector, whose brief would be to ensure that the issues vital to the quality of life of disabled people were recognised and tackled. Additionally, all councils should be required to have a mission statement setting out their vision, and making it clear that improving the quality of life for disabled people in their community is as important as providing nursery education or caring for the elderly. That mission statement would underpin a council's contract with its disabled citizens.
When I was a councillor, and chairman of my local authority's finance committee, we ensured that every report from every committee had a paragraph setting out the financial implications of every recommendation in the report. Why cannot we have exactly the same, but covering the impact of recommendations on disabled people?
Mr. Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend is making a positive and valuable contribution. I am sure that in talking about the needs of physically and learning-impaired people, he does not wish to exclude visually and hearing-impaired people, because everything he has said applies to them as well.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the major barrier that disabled people face is in the perception and awareness of other people as to their needs? Central and local government therefore have an obligation to set a good example, and my hon. Friend has cited a good case from his area. He may not be aware that I was in the United States last week, but I can assure him that a change in culture and attitude can and does happen, and that there is evidence from that country that it can be done.
Mr. Touhig: There is much that we can learn from the United States, which has been progressive and encouraging in showing the pattern that we can follow.
I have stressed the role of local councils because, most often, they are the first point of contact a disabled person turns to for help, and here a one-stop-shop approach would be welcomed. Local councils are taking part in best practice initiatives sponsored by the Government, but the needs of disabled people are being ignored in this exercise. Why are we not covering the important needs of disabled people?
One invaluable aid to identifying the problems of disabled people is the access audit. Recently an audit of every library in my borough revealed that all the fire

1495
alarms gave an audible warning of danger, but not a visual one. That is not much use if one is deaf or has a hearing impairment. That example demonstrates that the need to improve access goes much further than simply improving the physical access to buildings. Experience has shown that many access audits conducted by local councils are often carried out in a hurry and without the person responsible possessing any relevant experience.
Following the general election, many councils carried out access audits of their polling stations, and I very much welcome that. However, there is no statutory requirement on local authorities to carry out access audits for parks, open spaces and buildings. I took my twin granddaughters to a park last Sunday. They had a wonderful time, and I enjoyed the quality time that I spent with them. However, if I had been in a wheelchair, I would not have been able to get into the park because the only access was up a large flight of steps. I hope that the Government will consider making it a duty for local authorities to carry out access audits for parks and open spaces.
I said at the outset that the Government's decision to implement part III of the Disability Discrimination Act was very welcome, but it is essential for every local authority to meet the target for 2004, when they and all other service providers will have to make reasonable adjustments to the way in which they provide their services. So far as local councils are concerned, they should be instituting a rolling programme of work to meet the deadline—they should not come up to the deadline and then try to do the work in a short period of time.
I recognise that many authorities are taking action, but many are not. Improving access is not just about removing physical barriers. The problem facing people with learning disabilities stems not from physical barriers or the absence of reasonable adjustments, but rather from an unwillingness on behalf of providers of services to treat disabled people on equal terms. Mencap told me recently that 10 adults with learning disabilities were refused admission to a pre-booked party in a pub because the landlady considered that they would constitute a breach of the fire regulations and disturb the comfort of her regular customers.
Access for people with learning disabilities depends on much more than providing ramps. In another case, a Mencap employee with a learning disability who travelled to work daily by bus found that the bus turned into a garage one morning. Passengers were asked to disembark and find their own way out. The person with the learning disability was left abandoned on the bus, feeling confused and lost.
Often people with learning difficulties need no more specialised help than a positive and enlightened attitude on the part of those working in the public sector, the service industries and, yes, from us, their fellow citizens. Access for a person with a learning disability can be improved in a number of relatively straightforward ways. For example, transport can be made more accessible, not merely for the disabled but also for the elderly, by the use of large-print timetables, clearer signs at stations and bus stops, and clearer spoken announcements. Too often, a person with a learning disability will be confused by a sign reading, "Please use another route", when it should read, "Please use another bus". If service providers—
1496
in short, staff—receive the necessary training to enable them to respond to a person's specific needs, significant strides will be made towards improving access.
In health care, we must guarantee that a learning disability will not be a barrier. Worryingly, Mencap's recent report "Health for All" revealed that health authority inequality is very much a reality for people with learning difficulties. Despite the high incidence of hearing and visual impairment, Mencap's survey showed that few of them have regular hearing and eye tests. To access the health service, people with learning disabilities need information that they can understand and services that can understand them—in terms of knowing how to communicate and being able to work in a way that accommodates the extra time that it might take to deal with the problems of a person with a learning disability.
We must ensure that people with learning disabilities do not miss out, by providing health promotion information that they can understand. All our citizens must be given the chance to make the most of their lives. The new deal for the disabled is a good example of how partnership between Government, local authorities and the voluntary sector can significantly help to break down barriers to employment for disabled people.
Members of Parliament have a duty to enable all people with impairments to take a full and active part in their communities and in society as a whole. Only by removing the barriers that restrict access, both physical and conditional, can we make equality of opportunity not merely a dream for people with disabilities, but a reality.
In this House, we are privileged. We can make things happen. We have an opportunity to help to build a Britain in which all our people feel equally valued, involved and included, instead of ignored, isolated and excluded. For me, that is the true meaning of inclusivity.
10.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) on securing this debate on a topic that is not only of particular importance but that, as his contribution illustrated, is so wide ranging, affecting every aspect of our national life. I also thank him for his generosity in affording our hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) an opportunity to contribute to the debate. This Government are committed to achieving comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people in both the workplace and society at large.
In October 1997, we announced our strategy. First, we set up the disability rights task force to consider how best to secure comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people and to make recommendations on the role and functions of a disability rights commission—a major strand in our strategy. The task force, chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, is due to report on its wider considerations no later than July 1999 and submitted its recommendations on the commission before Easter. We hope to legislate for the establishment of a DRC at an early opportunity. Finally, we announced our commitment to implement fully part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which deals with rights of access to goods and services.
Since 2 December 1995, part III has placed duties on those providing goods, facilities and services—defined as "service providers"—not to discriminate against disabled

1497
people. From 1 October 1999, service providers will be required to make reasonable adjustments to policies, procedures or practices that exclude disabled people and to provide auxiliary aids and services to facilitate access. From 2004, where there is a physical barrier to service, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or avoid it.
On 30 July, the Department for Education and Employment, which leads in this area, launched a public consultation covering new requirements to make goods, services and facilities more accessible to disabled people. Access to transport is not only a civil rights issue, but a matter of social justice. We want high-quality transport designed for everyone—that means transport that is not only affordable but accessible.
A recent audit carried out by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation on disabled people's perception of the Government's achievements had transport ranked very high in the list of priorities. It is, of course, a priority for us all—our daily lives depend so much on our ability to get from place to place.
Some improvements—which have been based on research carried out by my Department and advocated by our statutory advisers, the disabled persons transport advisory committee—have already been made, including the introduction of low-floor buses, which offer step-free access. Many of those buses also have facilities for wheelchair users. All inter-city trains are accessible to wheelchair users, and many other services are now able to offer that facility. Accessible taxis, too, are more generally available, particularly in the larger towns and cities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn was concerned about access to the millennium dome site. I reassure him that there will be dedicated parking spaces for orange badge holders. Indeed, the Jubilee line extension, which we expect to carry the bulk of visitors, will be fully accessible.
We have the opportunity with the Disability Discrimination Act to create a fully accessible public transport system that will significantly improve the independent mobility of millions of disabled people. Specific technical standards will be set in regulations covering buses, coaches, trains—including underground, light rail and tramways—and licensed taxis. The technical standards will include means to travel in a wheelchair and facilities for those with low vision, hearing impairment, walking difficulties, poor balance and so on. I have been privileged to witness several innovative schemes that deal with the problems that people with learning difficulties frequently experience in their attempts to use public transport.
Discussions with DPTAC and relevant transport industries have developed the framework for the regulations. Consultation documents on our draft proposals for taxis, buses and coaches were circulated for wide public consultation last year. They included detailed technical standards and proposed implementation dates. For full-size single-deck buses, we proposed a start date of 1 January 2000, with an end date of 1 January 2015 for all such vehicles to meet the requirements. On taxis, we consulted on the basis of a start date of 1 January 2002 and an end date of 1 January 2012. For double-deck buses, we proposed a start date of 2002 and an end date of 2017,
1498
but I am happy to inform the House that the industry has told us that all new double-deck buses may meet the requirements by 2001.
The next stage for buses and coaches, as for taxis, will be to draw up draft regulations and carry out a further round of public consultation before the final regulations are introduced. An implementation date of 31 December 1998 for all rail vehicles was written into the primary legislation, but it became clear when we came into government that the consultation process would have to be accelerated if we were to provide industry with sufficient time to meet the requirements.
Consultation on draft regulations was carried out in the late spring of this year and the final regulations have been laid before Parliament. Subject to completion of the parliamentary procedures, the regulations will come into force on 1 November.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn pointed out, accessibility is not only about having the right vehicle. We must also ensure that the whole journey is seamless, which means that the infrastructure must be right. The provisions of part III of the Disability Discrimination Act, which deals with access to goods, services and facilities, will apply to railway and bus stations as to any other building to which the public have access.
In the meantime, we will be issuing guidance to transport operators and local authorities on the steps that they should be taking now—in advance of part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—to examine every aspect of their service provision. That also includes pavements, roads and so on and I hope that my hon. Friend will take some reassurance from that.
My hon. Friend also touched on the issue of access to buildings. That is dealt with by part M of the building regulations, "Access and Facilities for Disabled People", which covers new buildings and extensions including a ground floor. At present, part M covers non-domestic buildings, but later this month regulations will be laid before the House extending the requirements to all new housing.
The statutory requirements require reasonable provision to be made for disabled people to gain access to and to be able to use the building. The provisions cover facilities for people with mobility difficulties, sight and hearing difficulties, areas to which both my hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn and for High Peak referred. Guidance on how the requirements may be met are set out in an approved document. This guidance is not prescriptive and alternative ways of satisfying the statutory requirements may also be acceptable.
The extension to new housing will require access to the principal entrance storey of the dwelling, movement within the principal living storey, and accessible toilet facilities. The object of these requirements is to enable disabled people to visit the homes of friends and relatives and to enable older people to remain in their own homes longer. The requirements do not expect to provide full living conditions for disabled people as these will vary according to the nature of the disability. The approved document for part M will be republished in early November. Separate guidance is also being prepared on how to meet the technical aspects of providing an accessible threshold to the entrance of new dwellings.

1499
The requirements for access to new housing will take effect 12 months after the laying of the regulations, affording time for housebuilders to adjust to the new requirements.
Part M of the building regulations does not apply to existing buildings, but the duties on employers and service providers in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 require reasonable steps to be taken to remove physical obstacles to access. Those duties already apply in the case of employers and will apply to service providers from 2004.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn referred to access audits. They are one way in which employers and service providers may assess what alterations may be required to their premises. There is no statutory obligation to carry out such audits, nor do we believe it reasonable to impose one. We believe that access audits are best advocated as good practice. Both the Access Committee for England and the Centre for Accessible Environments offer guidance on how such audits may be carried out, and the Centre for Accessible Environments has a panel of experts for carrying out such work.
I am sure that we all agree that, regrettably, this is still a developing scene. The form that an audit takes needs to be tailored to the particular circumstances of each case
1500
and building. A broad-brush statutory requirement for such audits could well be, in the present emerging state of the art, a charter for cowboy practices in an area where it is overwhelmingly important to establish confidence in the credibility and realism of such audits and those who perform them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn pointed out, most local authorities have appointed an access officer and there is an Access Officers Association which affords support for its members. However, it is possible to combine that role with other duties, normally within the building control or planning departments. We believe that this matter should be left to the discretion of individual local authorities.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to my hon. Friends that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that disabled people do not face discrimination in accessing employment, housing, transport and the built environment. We have already made progress towards that and the plans that I have outlined this evening will take us further towards that goal, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn pointed out, will be achieved only be everyone working in the closest and most detailed, sympathetic and sensitive of partnerships.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  M6
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the membership of the West Midlands regional planning conference with responsibility for the proposed M6 capacity study and (b) those parties he intends to invite to participate in the study partnership. [55602]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The West Midlands to the North West conurbation study will be taken forward in partnership with the West Midlands and North West regional planning conferences, the Regional Development Agencies, the Highways Agency and OPRAF. In the West Midlands the regional planning conference is the Regeneration and Environment Committee of the West Midlands Local Government Association. The members of the committee are:

  Birmingham City Council: Cllrs. B. F. Bird, A. Bore, B. Clarke, A. Coulson, F. Coyne, G. Coyne, J. Chapman, B. Harvey, R. Hassall, I. W. M. McCardle, D. Minnis, P. G. Murphy, R. Pinney, A. M. Rudge, R. Spector, T. J. Stewart, M. Whitby, M. Wells

  Bridgnorth District Council: Cllr. C. J. Lea

  Bromsgrove District Council: Cllr. R. Clayton

  Cannock District Council: Cllr. G. E. Roberts

  Coventry City Council: Cllrs. J. V. Gazey, J. McNicholas, H. N. Nolan

  Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council: Cllrs. G. H. Davies, A. J. Fletcher, M. C. Knight, D. H. Sparks, R. Tomkinson, C. L. Woodall, R. D. Burt

  East Staffordshire Borough Council: Cllr. P. Perry

  Herefordshire County Council: Cllrs. T. M. James, R. C. Summers, B. Tannatt Nash, D. W. Rule

  Lichfield District Council: Cllr. E. Drinkwater

  Malvern Hills District Council: Cllr. J. Ford

  Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council: Cllr. H. Matthews

  North Shropshire District Council: Cllr. D. Hollis

  North Warwickshire Borough Council: Cllr. D. Birkinshaw

  Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council: Cllr. M. J. Jones

  Oswestry Borough Council: Cllr. S. Jones

  Redditch Borough Council: Cllr. R. Passingham

  Rugby Borough Council: Cllr. B. Levy

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council: Cllrs. S. C. Eling, S. Smith

  Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council: Cllr. D. Moore

  Shropshire County Council: Cllrs. P. A. Engleheart, E. J. Everall, D. Hill, N. Hartin, R. Walker

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council: Cllrs. M. Corser, L. W. P. Kyles, J. A. Morris. G. E. Richards, J. Reed

  South Shropshire District Council: Cllr. J. H. Meredith

  South Staffordshire District Council: Cllr. W. F. Brownhill

  Stafford Borough Council: Cllr. P. A. Walker

  1158

  Staffordshire County Council: Cllrs. T. A. Dix, A. R. Hanchard, D. Heptonstall, C. E. Holland, W. Hughes, R. Roberts, T. J. Wakefield, A. G. Ward

  Staffodshire Moorlands District Council: Cllr. S. H. Proffitt

  Stoke-on-Trent City Council: Cllrs. B. Holmes, A. Jones, P. A. Shaw, B. G. Stockley, J. Edwards

  Stratford on Avon District Council: Cllr. T. Baxter

  Tamworth Borough Council: Cllr. S. R. Tonks

  Telford and Wrekin City Council: Cllrs. D. Blackwell, D. Davies, C. Smith

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council: Cllrs. M. R. Burley, B. Douglas-Maul, S. K. Peart, T. Perrett, I. Shires, H. Smith, H. Withnall

  Warwick District Council: Cllr. B. Evans

  Warwickshire County Council: Cllrs. G. D. Collett, D. A. Forwood, M. Heatley, J. A. Tandy, H. A. Thomas

  Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council: Cllrs. A. Hart, R. C. Lawrence, J. McCallum, M. Jaspal, P. Allen

  Worcester City Council: Cllr. M. Wills

  Worcestershire County Council: Cllrs. R. A. A. Bullock, C. R. Beardwood, P. H. Fallows, E. B. Tucker, H. Purcell, L. Townley

  Wychavon District Council: Cllr. J. Payne

  Wyre Forest District Council: Cllr. D. A. Lewis

  West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority: Cllrs. S. C. Stacey, P. Tilsley, R. Paice, R. Badham, D. Batten

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) timescale and (b) terms of reference for the proposed study of capacity problems on the M6 between the West Midlands and the North West conurbation. [55601]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We will shortly be consulting regional planning conferences on the timing for all the studies proposed in A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England. However, we expect to agree an early start date for this study.

  The study will consider the scope for modal shift to address environmental and congestion problems on the M6. The detailed terms of reference for the study will be drawn up in consultation with local authorities and other interests.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what exemptions of specific materials are(a) in place and (b) being considered for the landfill tax. [55665]

  Mr. Meale
  There are currently exemptions from Landfill Tax for:(a) material dredged from harbours and inland waterways; (b) mining and quarrying waste; (c) waste arising from the reclamation of contaminated land; and (d) for disposal of pets in pet cemeteries. As announced in the last budget, there will be an exemption for the restoration of landfill sites and the backfilling of quarries. DETR and Customs have been consulting the landfill and quarrying industries in developing this new exemption. Full details will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations his Department has received from contractors and trade associations about exemptions and rebates from landfill tax, with particular reference to top soil and inert natural materials. [55668]
  1159
  Mr. Meale
  DETR and Customs have been consulting the landfill and quarrying industries in developing the exemption from Landfill Tax for the restoration of landfill sites and the backfilling of quarries. In the course of that consultation there have been many representations from trade associations and individual operators in both industries. The exemption will be restricted in inert materials. Full details will be announced in due course.

  Sewage Treatment
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what timetable his Department plans to set for the installation of secondary treatment works at the Southern Water sewage treatment plant at Yaverland on the Isle of Wight. [55725]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government announced in September that secondary sewage treatment would be required for all significant coastal outfalls in England and Wales. In cases which were formerly potential derogations to a lower level of treatment, such as Yaverland, we will encourage water and sewerage companies to make as rapid progress as possible with installation of secondary treatment. The timing of investment is being discussed between the Environment Agency and individual companies and will be agreed by Ministers early next year, as part of an approved company investment programme.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses his Department received to its consultation on transitional provisions to cover the period before and following the extension of Part M of the building regulations to new dwellings; and what percentage of these were from(a) disability organisations, (b) building-related bodies and (c) housing providers. [55863]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department has received 66 responses to its consultation on transitional provisions to cover the period before and following the extension of Part M of the Building Regulations to new dwellings. Of these responses: 29% were from disability organisations; 41% were from building related bodies (half of which were national or regional associations or professional bodies); and 8% were from housing providers.

  A full list of those who responded has been lodged in the House Library.

  House Building
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to revise his Department's estimate that 4.4 million new homes will need to be built by 2016 to satisfy demand; and if he will make a statement. [55763]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The next set of household projections is due to be published early in 1999.

  Climate Change Consultation Paper
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish the Government's climate change consultation paper. [56627]
  1160
  Mr. Prescott
  On Monday 26 October I will launch a consultation paper seeking views on policy options for meeting our climate change targets. Copies of the document will be available from the Vote Office and placed in the Libraries of the House.

  National Bus Company Pensions
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons he has now decided to seek an out of court settlement to the current legal action on National Bus Company pensions. [56628]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Litigation was set in train by the decision of the previous Government to offer the trustees funding to pursue this matter through the courts. In view of this it would not have been appropriate to begin negotiations on a settlement until the details of this complex case had been fully prepared and all the relevant facts and arguments were known to and considered by both parties. The Trustees submitted the final part of their claims in July this year. The Government received strong legal advice that they should lodge their own response with the court before opening discussions on an out of court settlement. The Secretary of State initiated settlement discussions as soon as that stage was reached.

  Local Deprivation Index
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the technical report on revising and updating the Index of Local Deprivation will be published.[56629]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have placed in the House Library the report describing the technical details of revising and updating the Index of Local Deprivation, the results of which were published in June of this year.

  Environmental Pollution Report
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to respond to the Twentieth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. [56677]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government have today published their response to the Twentieth Report, on Transport and the Environment. Copies of the Response have been Laid before the House.

  The Government's response to the Commission closely follows their recently published White Paper on Integrated Transport. The Government note the clear resonance between the themes emphasised in the White Paper and in this Royal Commission report and its predecessor, the Eighteenth Report. These include recognition that the consequences of future traffic growth are indeed unacceptable; the need to take action to secure more sustainable transport for the future; the need for integration, both within and between transport modes, and of transport policies with other policies; agreement that Government should aim to provide the framework for all those with an interest in transport to play their part; the potential for technology to provide solutions through innovation, amongst other things, in fuel efficiency and emissions; and the need to encourage awareness of transport issues, and to send consistent signals such that we all work to further sustainable development objectives.
  1161
  The Government have warmly welcomed the Royal Commission's reports, which have been influential in shaping the new mood for change, away from policies dominated by the short-term, and towards a more sustainable approach to transport policy that tackles both congestion and pollution. The Government look forward to developing this common ground as we all work to implement the new integrated transport policy.

DEFENCE

  Young Navy Personnel
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the deployment of young people under the age of 17 years in the naval service. [56418]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Following a recent review of the policy for the deployment of young people into operational service in Royal Navy vessels and Royal Marine units I have decided that, with immediate effect, Naval Service personnel will not be deployed below the age of 17. Recruitment and training at age 16 will, however, continue. This change brings the Naval Service into line with the Army and RAF, which do not deploy young people below the age of 17.

  Civilian Jobs (Scotland)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD civilian jobs there are in Scotland by location. [55410]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry does not keep central records of the number of posts. The table gives the total number of full time equivalent personnel, both permanent and casual, by the location recorded on their pay and personnel records as at 1 September 1998.

  Ministry of Defence personnel based in Scotland— 1 September 1998

  Location

  Number (Full time Equivalents1)

  Abbotsinch

  5

  Aberdeen

  90

  Almond

  263

  Arbroath

  95

  Aultbea

  1

  Aviemore

  5

  Ayr

  3

  Badenoch

  3

  Beith

  568

  Benbecula

  54

  Bishopton

  20

  Buchan

  79

  Burntisland

  6

  Carnoustie

  22

  Clyde

  27

  Clydebank

  1

  Coatbridge

  2

  Comrie

  13

  Coulport

  1,083

  Craigiehall

  148

  Crombie

  257

  Cupar

  2

  Dingwall

  4

  Dounreay

  3

  Dreghorn

  12

  Dumbarton

  6

  1162

  Ministry of Defence personnel based in Scotland— 1 September 1998

  Location

  Number (Full time Equivalents1)

  Dumfries

  3

  Dunblane

  71

  Dundee

  59

  Dunfermline

  34

  Dyce

  5

  East Kilbride

  6

  Eastriggs

  6

  Edinburgh

  372

  Edzell

  1

  Elgin

  22

  Eskdalemuir

  6

  Fairlie

  10

  Faslane

  1,885

  Galashiels

  1

  Garelochead

  4

  Glasgow

  1,794

  Glen Douglas

  2

  Glencorse

  43

  Grangemouth

  3

  Greenock

  59

  Hamilton

  1

  Helensburgh

  26

  Invergowrie

  3

  Inverness

  55

  Irvine

  2

  Isle of Tiree

  5

  Kinloss

  334

  Kinross

  6

  Kirkcaldy

  1

  Kirkcudbright

  26

  Kirkwall

  4

  Kyle of Lochalsh

  16

  Lerwick

  12

  Leuchars

  311

  Livingstone

  4

  Loch Goil

  26

  Lossiemouth

  313

  Machrihanish

  2

  Mitlon Bridge

  33

  Monkton

  6

  Motherwell

  1

  Nairn

  3

  North Gerwick

  10

  Paisley

  3

  Penicuik

  19

  Perth

  156

  Peterhead

  3

  Pitreavie

  5

  Prestwick

  57

  Rosneath

  154

  Rosyth

  515

  Saxa Vord

  40

  Stirling

  251

  Stornaway

  7

  Tain

  1

  West Freugh

  50

  Wick

  1

  Total

  9,612

  1 The total may not equal the sum of the parts due to rounding

  Accommodation (Scotland)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many single accommodation places exist for each of
  1163
  the services in Scotland, for (a) officers and (b) other ranks, by location; and if he will estimate the total number of service personnel that could be accommodated on shore in Scotland if all the available accommodation were utilised. [55407]

  Officers

  Other Ranks

  Ser

  Service

  Location

  Total SLA1

  Occupied SLA2

  Total SLA1

  Occupied SLA2

  1

  Navy

  HMS Neptune

  238

  144

  2,142

  1,417

  2

  HMS Caledonia

  28

  20

  509

  277

  3

  HMS Gannet

  21

  19

  264

  145

  4

  RM Condor

  80

  353

  1,082

  3514

  Total

  367

  236

  3,997

  2,353

  5

  Army

  HQ Craigiehall

  26

  16

  153

  39

  6

  HQ Edinburgh Castle

  8

  5

  113

  440

  7

  Dreghorn Barracks

  22

  19

  395

  278

  8

  Redford Infantry Barracks

  23

  22

  386

  356

  9

  Ford George

  25

  18

  468

  235

  Total

  104

  80

  1,515

  948

  10

  RAF

  Benbecula

  0

  0

  35

  35

  11

  Buchan

  30

  20

  233

  192

  12

  Kinloss

  101

  60

  771

  602

  13

  Leuchars

  155

  48

  692

  575

  14

  Machrihanish

  51

  0

  242

  0

  15

  Lossiemouth

  115

  50

  993

  853

  16

  Saxa Vord

  14

  4

  137

  90

  17

  Stornoway

  0

  0

  24

  18

  Total

  466

  182

  3,127

  2,365

  Tri-Service Total

  937

  498

  8,639

  5,666

  1 To show total number of available bedspaces

  2 To show occupied number of bedspaces

  3 As at 1 October 1998. Does not take account of elements of RM Condor who are currently deployed in Belize and Northern Ireland

  4 ORs occupancy figure increases to 80 during Edinburgh Tattoo

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what barrack accommodation is currently surplus to requirements in Scotland and awaiting disposal; and if he will estimate the potential single accommodation capacity of these barracks if modernised. [55409]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Navy and Army have no surplus single living accommodation awaiting disposal in Scotland. The RAF has 2 sites which are considered to be surplus and which are in the process of disposal, as follows:

  a. RAF Edzell. RAF Edzell was passed to the Defence Estate Organisation (DEO) for disposal in September 1998. If modernised, it is assessed that there would be 300 single bed spaces.

  b. RAF Stornoway. It was announced on 13 February 1998 that RAF Stornoway was to close on 31 March 1998; however further work is in hand to establish the MOD's legal position regarding Former Ownership of the land which requires resolution before proceeding with the sale. If modernised, it is assessed that there would be 15 single bed spaces.

  Lucknow Company (Officer Cadets)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officer cadets were in the Lucknow Company at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst in(a) July 1996, (b) July 1997 and (c) July 1998. [55530]
  1164
  Mr. Spellar
  There are a total of 9,576 single accommodation places on shore in Scotland. Currently, 6,164 accommodation spaces are occupied. The breakdown by Service, location and by Officers and Other Ranks accommodation is shown on the table:

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Lucknow Platoon, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, is a holding platoon, to which officer cadets, out of training for any reason, belong, including those undergoing medical treatment, those awaiting disciplinary action, and those undertaking further education.

  The strength of the Lucknow Platoon in July 1996, 1997 and 1998 was as follows:

  Year

  Total number of cadets

  1996

  Between 33 and 36

  1997

  Between 35 and 37

  1998

  Between 46 and 48

  Training Camps (Scotland)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many places(a) are currently available and (b) will be available by 2000, in training camps in Scotland, for (a) Kirkcudbright, (b) Barry Budden and (c) Cultybraggan. [55408]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are 500 bed spaces available at each of the training camps at Barry Budden and Cultybraggan; and no plans to alter this by the year 2000. There is no training camp accommodation at the
  1165
  Kirkcudbright training area, but there are plans to provide accommodation for up to 240 which may reach fruition by the year 2000.

SCOTLAND

  Motorcycle Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many motorcycle parking spaces exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible; and how many are secure spaces. [55257]

  Mr. Dewar
  There are 25 motorcycle parking spaces associated with the main administrative office buildings of which The Scottish Office is the major occupier. Of these, 19 are secure spaces. Information about other buildings for which my Department or its agencies are responsible is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Individual Pupil Compacts
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action his Department has taken to introduce individual pupil compacts setting out targets for pupils in Scottish schools. [55043]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 19 October 1998]: The Government in Scotland are committed to taking forward Personal Learning Plans which will bring together all the relevant information on a child's performance and enable parents, teachers and pupils to agree a programme of development which will include targets for attainment. Further guidance will be issued to education authorities in due course.

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made on preparing revised planning policy guidance on opencast coal following last year's consultation exercise; and if he will make a statement. [56678]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Government are publishing today a consultative draft of proposed new planning policy guidance on opencast coal for Scotland. The proposed revised guidance is intended to supersede the current guidance on opencast coal as set out in National Planning Policy Guideline 4: Land for Mineral Working.

  The new guidance sets a more robust framework within which planning authorities must consider all proposals for opencast coal developments. The intention is to ensure that, in considering proposals, full weight is given, in particular, to the effect and potential disturbance on local communities as well as other environmental considerations including nature conservation and the impact on the landscape.

  Where a proposal would cause demonstrable harm, the guidance is clear that permission should not be granted except where the benefit of the development proposal to the community clearly outweighs the potential harm.
  1166
  The highest environmental standards are expected for all opencast and related mineral operations including timely and sensitive restoration and aftercare of sites. A key feature of the policy is to introduce realistic separation distances between communities and sites for opencast extraction.

  To re-inforce this policy, the Secretary of State has today directed that, where planning authorities are minded to grant consent, they should notify him of proposals which fall into a number of defined circumstances. In addition, it is the Secretary of State's intention, once the policy guidance has been finalised, to issue a direction requiring those local authorities where proposals for opencast coal and related minerals occur to review their development plan policies and to report on the action taken within a set timetable.

  We believe that the proposals set out in the guidance represent a significantly stronger framework which will ensure that the consideration of opencast coal proposals is consistent with the Government's pre-Election commitments. We look to planning authorities and the opencast industry to work within this new policy context in promoting and approving only environmentally acceptable sites.

  A copy of the guidance is being placed in the House Library. Copies are being widely circulated to planning authorities, industry and environmental interests. The proposals are open for consultation until 11 December. We will then take steps to ensure that final guidance is in place early in the new year and well ahead of the elections for the new Scottish Parliament. In the meantime, the Secretary of State expects planning authorities to treat the draft guidance as a material consideration in their assessment of all current and future applications.

  Scottish Compact
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the launch of the Scottish Compact. [56679]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Compact sets out the principles underpinning the relationship between Government and the voluntary sector in Scotland. Command Paper No. 4083 will be laid before the House on Friday 23 October.

  The publication of the Scottish Compact (which will be complemented by sister Compacts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) meets another of the Government's pre-election commitments. It will help cement a closer partnership between the Government and the voluntary sector in areas of common concern for the benefit of society as a whole.

  Non-Domestic Rating
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the method used to define rural areas in the Non-Domestic Rating (Rural Areas and Rateable Value Limits) Scotland Order 1997; and if he will make a statement. [55303]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Village Shops Rate Relief Scheme was introduced on 1 April 1998 after extensive consultation, with the majority of consultees accepting that the General Register Office (Scotland) (GRO(S))
  1167
  postcode method of urban/rural classification was the best available for the purposes of the Scheme. The GRO(S) classification method will be reviewed after the 2001 Census.

  Study Support
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will report on progress in creating a national framework for study support. [55103]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Significant resources are being made available for study support in Scotland. In the three years from April 1999, the New Opportunities Fund will commit a total of £23 million and the Government will provide new resources of £27 million as part of the recently announced Excellence Fund to support out of school hours learning activities.

  In addition, we are giving The Prince's Trust—Action grant of £40,000 this financial year. The grant will support the development of networking arrangements to share ideas and good practice on study support and the dissemination of a CD ROM. The support arrangements will include regional seminars later this year.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mediation Services
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the amount of training in mediation services which has been offered to members of the judiciary. [54677]

  Mr. Hoon
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board. As part of its programme to support the civil justice reforms, the Judicial Studies Board held a series of seminars for all full-time judges who deal with civil cases. They included presentations by three mediators and a report on the mediation pilot scheme at Central London County Court. For the second stage of training, the board is planning further seminars for all full-time civil judges to develop a common approach to the reforms. These seminars will include a presentation designed to assist judges in identifying cases suitable for mediation.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what studies have been undertaken or evaluated by his Department in respect of the potential role which could be played by mediation in medical negligence cases; and if he will make a statement. [54674]

  Mr. Hoon
  In her evaluation of the Central London County Court mediation pilot scheme, Professor Genn gathered data according to case type; only one case concerning medical negligence was mediated, and it did not settle. It would be inappropriate to draw conclusions from such a small sample. I await with interest the evaluation of the NHS Executive sponsored mediation pilot project which I understand will be completed shortly.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment his Department has made, or plans to make, of the potential implications of a compulsory mediation 1168
  stage in the litigation process in terms of reducing (a) delays and (b) costs in litigation; and if he will make a statement. [54678]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government are considering the role of mediation in the civil justice system in the light of Professor Genn's findings on the pilot mediation scheme at the Central London County Court.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment his Department has made of the pilot study of mediation services undertaken at Central London County Court; and if he will make a statement. [54675]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department funded Professor Hazel Genn to evaluate the mediation pilot scheme at the Central London County Court. Her report was published in July. It shows that, whilst only a small minority of cases were mediated, of those that were, 62 per cent. reached settlement at the mediation; that mediated settlements were achieved earlier than settlements in non-mediated cases; and that the litigants involved welcomed the opportunity to state their grievance in their own words and to participate in a relatively informal process.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what meetings have been held by his Department with providers of mediation services concerning the potential role of such services in the civil legal system. [54676]

  Mr. Hoon
  Officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department have met representatives of ADR Group, and of the Centre for Dispute Resolution to discuss the role of mediation in non-family civil disputes. The Department, with University College London, also organised a major symposium on mediation to which providers of such services were invited.

  Persistent Inquirers
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which of his Department's agencies have procedures to identify persistent inquirers for information. [53951]

  Mr. Hoon
  No specific procedures are in place to identify persistent inquirers.

  Legal Aid (Telephone Inquiries)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many members of staff on(a) a full-time and (b) a part-time basis are employed to deal with telephone inquiries to the Legal Aid Board for the South East Region. [54065]

  Mr. Hoon
  The South East Region Area Office has three telephone lines used for Customer Services inquiries. One for legal queries, one for means assessment queries and one for questions relating to finance. The legal line is staffed by a full time receptionist who passes calls to one of eight full time legal caseworkers to take appropriate action. The finance and means assessment lines are each staffed by one full time caseworker.
  1169

  Legal Aid (Pink Floyd Concert)
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what is the amount awarded in legal aid, to date, to those pursuing legal action against Arena Promotional Facilities Ltd., co-organisers of the Pink Floyd concert at Earl's Court; and if he will make a statement; [54409]

  (2) what is the amount awarded in legal aid, to date, to those pursuing legal action against Harvey Goldsmith Entertainments Ltd., co-organisers of the Pink Floyd concert at Earl's Court; and if he will make a statement; [54410]

  (3) what is the total amount awarded in legal aid, to date, to those pursuing legal action against David McCullum Ltd., in connection with the Pink Floyd concert at Earl's Court; and if he will make a statement; [54158]

  (4) what is the amount awarded in legal aid, to date, to those pursuing legal action against Earl's Court Ltd., co-organisers of the Pink Floyd concert at Earl's Court; and if he will make a statement. [54411]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information is not readily available, as the Legal Aid Board's database records the name only of the applicant for legal aid. However, so far as the Legal Aid Board is able to determine, twelve certificates have been identified which relate to claims being made against a combination of one or more of the four defendants.

  Of the twelve certificates, one applicant has been successful in recovering damages and costs from the defendants and therefore no cost claim has been made on the Legal Aid Fund. One other applicant withdrew from the action and the certificate was subsequently discharged resulting in a cost to the fund of £150. The remaining ten certificates are currently in force with claims ongoing but no final bills have yet been submitted.

PRIME MINISTER

  Currency Flows
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement of 30 September on the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning world monetary stability, what plans he has to seek agreement between major trading nations to co-ordinate limited regulation of currency flows related to loans and investments of speculative character. [55683]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to seek to restrict currency flows in the global economy which I believe would damage prospects for stability and growth. Our priority is, instead, to create a more open, transparent and robust financial system, with better information and subject to better and more co-ordinated oversight by national regulators and international financial institutions.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 23 June, if he will discuss with President Clinton and M. Jacques Santer the sanctions imposed on Libya under UN Security Council resolutions. [54965]
  1170
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 October 1998]: UN Security Council Resolution 1192 states that the UN sanctions imposed on Libya will be suspended once the two Lockerbie accused are delivered to the Netherlands for trial before a Scottish court, and provided the French Government declare themselves satisfied with Libyan co-operation concerning the UTA bombing. I regularly discuss the need for Libyan compliance with UN Security Council resolutions in my bilateral contacts.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 27 April 1998,Official Report, column 17, what report he has received from Scotland Yard about the case of the murder of WPC Fletcher; and what is his current assessment of the case as a major obstacle to the United Kingdom's bilateral relations with Libya. [54966]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 October 1998]: The murder of WPC Fletcher remains a major obstacle to the normalisation of our bilateral relations with Libya. I understand from the Home Office that the Metropolitan Police inquiries are nearing completion.

  Transport White Paper
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings he had with non-governmental bodies about transport policy and the Transport White Paper in the three months before the publication of the White Paper; and which of these meetings were attended by employees of professional lobby consultants. [55268]

  The Prime Minister
  We carried out an extensive consultation as part of the fundamental review of transport policy. Prior to publication of the Transport White Paper my Ministers and I met a large number of individuals and organisations to discuss a wide range of transport issues. The discussions and the written representations we received played an important role in informing the development of our integrated transport policy.

  China
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he made about human rights during his recent visit to China. [55952]

  The Prime Minister
  In my meetings with President Jiang Zemin and Premier Zhu Rongji, I welcomed China's signature of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and urged China to commence a dialogue with the Dalai Lama on Tibet. I raised the cases of individuals, including Xu Wenli, who was detained on 7 October and then released. In my speech on 7 October I emphasised the need to address human rights through continued dialogue and encouraged China to take further positive steps.

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is the Government's policy to accept the latest recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and if he will make a statement. [55758]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government strongly welcome the Committee's report on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom which was published on 13 October. We intend to legislate on the main findings of the report so that robust and rigorous
  1171
  rules governing the funding of political parties can be in place before the next general election. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will publish a draft Bill before next year's summer recess.

WALES

  New Deal
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress with the New Deal in Wales. [55593]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) on 20 October 1998,Official Report, column 1073.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the current levels of funding per pupil for education in each Welsh local education authority. [55598]

  Mr. Hain
  The latest available information for local education authorities is the budgeted gross revenue expenditure per pupil in 1997–98. This is shown in the table.

  Gross revenue expenditure per pupil by local education authority, 1997–981

  LEA

  £ per pupil

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,252

  Bridgend

  2,250

  Caerphilly

  2,203

  Cardiff

  2,124

  Carmarthenshire

  2,558

  Ceredigion

  2,750

  Conwy

  2,144

  Denbighshire

  2,104

  Flintshire

  2,162

  Gwynedd

  2,486

  Isle of Anglesey

  2,418

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2,375

  Monmouthshire

  2,283

  Neath Port Talbot

  2,429

  Newport

  2,250

  Pembrokeshire

  2,486

  Powys

  2,627

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  2,456

  Swansea

  2,265

  Torfaen

  2,168

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,977

  Wrexham

  2,121

  Wales

  2,297

  1 Provisional

  Job Creation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs, in each Welsh county, have been(a) created and (b) sustained, by (i) inward investment from abroad and (ii) investment from indigenous firms, in each year since 1993. [55591]

  Mr. Hain
  The information is not available in the form requested. Reliable information is available only in respect of offers of Regional Selective Assistance. Forecasts of employment from offers accepted by 1172
  companies since April 1993 are set out in the table. For the purposes of historical comparison the table gives information on the basis of the old counties.

  Jobs Forecast

  Indigenous1

  Foreign-Owned2

  Welsh Counties

  New

  Sustained

  New

  Sustained

  1993–94

  Clwyd

  1,139

  860

  423

  517

  Dyfed

  86

  15

  246

  320

  Gwent

  681

  787

  1,789

  514

  Gwynedd

  158

  268

  0

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,577

  413

  645

  304

  Powys

  107

  0

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  223

  4

  526

  0

  West Glamorgan

  229

  284

  171

  742

  Total

  4,200

  2,631

  3,800

  2,397

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  416

  13

  242

  435

  Dyfed

  352

  0

  92

  12

  Gwent

  686

  309

  296

  11

  Gwynedd

  200

  84

  181

  135

  Mid Glamorgan

  944

  469

  407

  672

  Powys

  50

  0

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  191

  15

  0

  0

  West Glamorgan

  262

  32

  8

  0

  Total

  3,101

  922

  1,226

  1,265

  1995–96

  Clwyd

  501

  65

  471

  390

  Dyfed

  480

  296

  21

  20

  Gwent

  790

  89

  722

  369

  Gwynedd

  80

  25

  37

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  983

  291

  811

  1,525

  Powys

  28

  0

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  300

  23

  1,050

  0

  West Glamorgan

  236

  126

  59

  250

  Total

  3,398

  915

  3,171

  2,554

  1996–97

  Glwyd

  742

  273

  541

  443

  Dyfed

  51

  5

  0

  0

  Gwent

  883

  231

  2,431

  868

  Gwynedd

  88

  27

  15

  78

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,676

  251

  2,719

  2,915

  Powys

  14

  0

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  714

  74

  326

  0

  West Glamorgan

  352

  174

  491

  312

  Total

  4,520

  1,035

  6,523

  4,616

  1997–98

  Clwyd

  713

  2

  320

  284

  Dyfed

  227

  24

  264

  0

  Gwent

  1,112

  691

  6,943

  517

  Gwynedd

  98

  33

  63

  200

  Mid Glamorgan

  459

  28

  676

  316

  Powys

  51

  0

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  324

  45

  159

  293

  West Glamorgan

  286

  95

  613

  63

  Total

  3,270

  918

  9,038

  1,673

  1998–99 (October)

  Clwyd

  60

  0

  310

  0

  Dyfed

  51

  2

  85

  0

  Gwent

  265

  120

  88

  15

  Gwynedd

  0

  10

  0

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  462

  34

  170

  0

  1173

  Jobs Forecast

  Indigenous1

  Foreign-Owned2

  Welsh Counties

  New

  Sustained

  New

  Sustained

  Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  745

  0

  0

  0

  West Glamorgan

  109

  0

  117

  20

  Total

  1,692

  166

  770

  35

  Note:

  For the purpose of these tables:

  1 Indigenous companies are those where the ultimate holding company is registered in the UK

  2 Foreign-owned companies are those where the ultimate holding company is registered overseas

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the negotiations regarding securing Objective one status for western Wales and the valleys. [55596]

  Mr. Hain
  Today the Office for National Statistics announced GDP figures for all NUTS 2 regions of the United Kingdom. The figures for the West Wales and the Valleys NUTS 2 region make it very likely that it will qualify for Objective 1 status under the new EC regulations governing the Structural funds for 2000–06, assuming that the criterion for Objective 1 remains that an area should have GDP levels below 75 per cent. of the European Union average. The draft regulations are currently being considered by Member States. Negotiations are unlikely to be completed before the end of March next year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Wave Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has to announce investment in wave energy. [55677]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government propose to undertake a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources in line with their manifesto commitment. To this end, I have commissioned a review of policy towards new and renewable energy, including consideration of what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of UK electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010, and how renewables can make an effective contribution to meeting requirements for future greenhouse gas reduction commitments. The prospects for wave energy technology will be considered in that review, the outcome of which I hope to be able to announce later this year.

  In the meantime, Scottish Office Ministers have launched the third competition under the Scottish Renewables Obligation (SRO-3) and are minded that the SRO-3 Order should make limited capacity available to wave power projects, among others.

  Start-up Grant
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the Government's policy on repayment of start-up grant when companies close within five years of opening. [55962]
  1174
  Mr. Mandelson
  All offers of Regional Selective Assistance grant require the beneficiaries to accept terms and conditions under which we may vary, withhold or seek repayment of grant in circumstances where the project under-achieves. Normal policy is to clawback or withhold on a pro-rate basis to the progress achieved.

  Siemens (North-east Plant)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much start-up grant Siemens received for their plant in the North East. [55961]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The company has received £18 million Regional Selective Assistance from the offer of £30 million made in December 1995.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek repayment of start-up grant from Siemens following the planned closure of their plant in the North East. [55964]

  Mr. Mandelson
  A decision was made not to clawback the Regional Selective Assistance grant immediately while officials worked with the company to find a buyer. If, however, we are unsuccessful in this, recovery of grant will be considered in the normal way.

  Post Office
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the planned levels of annual borrowing and returned cash available to the Post Office for re-investment. [55954]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Post Office has no annual borrowing planned and expects to spend some £500 million on capital investment in the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when he plans to introduce measures allowing greater commercial freedom to the Post Office; [55953]

  (2) when he plans to announce the conclusions of his review of the Post Office. [55955]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Work on the Government's review aimed at allowing the Post Office greater commercial freedom is proceeding apace. I will present our proposals as soon as I am ready to do so.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by how much the Post Office has proposed to reduce its negative EFL in 1999. [55965]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Post Office has made clear its wish to have an EFL set at a commercial dividend level.

  Fairness at Work White Paper
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the Fairness at Work White Paper. [55115]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Department has received 474 responses, reflecting a wide range of views, to the White Paper on Fairness at Work, published on 21 May. I am placing a list of respondents in the Library of the House.
  1175

  Manufacturing Employment
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for employment in manufacturing industry over the next 24 months. [55125]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government appreciate that the level of sterling and, more recently, the impact of financial problems in Asia have been causing difficulties for some manufacturers. We are ensuring that the necessary conditions are in place for a high and sustainable level of manufacturing employment over the long term: low inflation and sound public finances.

  As well as setting in place the framework for securing economic stability, the Government are committed to helping the manufacturing sector, and each worker within it, to become more productive. We encourage individuals to gain knowledge and skills to enhance their employability. Measures such as the University for Industry will assist in this and will help boost the productivity and competitiveness of business through a new approach to learning. The Government are intent on providing the best environment for research and development, to help ensure dynamic and innovative businesses are continually developing new products and services. The new University Challenge fund will provide £50 million in venture capital to help university scientists commercially exploit their research.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many special advisers and their staff are employed in his Department. [54467]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: There are two special advisers employed by my Department. They are given the usual level of administrative support by the Department.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Visits (Advisers)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the overseas visits between 1 July and 19 October on which Ministers have been accompanied by special advisers and, for each trip,(a) the name of the adviser, (b) the class and cost of travel booked for the adviser, (c) the class of travel actually used by the adviser and (d) the accommodation and ancillary costs for the adviser. [55996]

  Clare Short
  The Ministerial Code requires Ministers always to make efficient and cost effective travel arrangements. In line with the practice of successive Administrations, civil servants (including Special Advisers) accompanying Ministers on overseas visits are entitled to use the same class of travel as the Minister they are accompanying to facilitate briefings and discussions. Ministers in this Department were accompanied by two civil servants and a Special Adviser on an overseas visit to Tanzania and Kenya at a cost of £14,054.30. This is the total cost, including hotels, for all members of the delegation.
  1176

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department expects to spend in each year from 1998–99 to 2000–01 on vehicle replacements. [54983]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We plan to spend £4,384,833 on vehicle replacements in 1998–99. We are still formulating our spending plans for 1999–2000 to 2000–01 in light of the budgetary outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  EC Referendums
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy on the basis of the distribution of European Community funds between opposing sides on referendums on EC issues. [55378]

  Ms Quin
  We have not taken any decision about policy on funding in any future referendums on EC issues. We are giving careful consideration to the Neill Committee's recommendations on the conduct of referendums generally.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with President Clerides on the subject of a demilitarisation of the Island of Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [55616]

  Ms Quin
  We are in regular contact with President Clerides on all aspects of the situation in Cyprus, including the question of demilitarisation.

  We believe that the key to assuring the security of all Cypriots is not by increases in military forces and armaments, but through a comprehensive political settlement. We recognise eventual demilitarisation as an important objective in this context.

  We therefore warmly welcome the UN Secretary-General's recent announcement of a UN process for contact between the parties aimed at reducing tensions and promoting progress towards a political settlement. We strongly support this process and urge the parties to co-operated with it in a constructive and flexible manner.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Minister from his Department has visited the Lebanon since 1 May 1997. [55932]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited the Republic of Lebanon on 18 March 1998. I visited Lebanon on 29–30 May 1997.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Lebanese Government Ministers have visited the United Kingdom since 1 May 1997. [55931]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Lebanese Prime Minister visited the United Kingdom on 17–18 July 1997.
  1177

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations(a) he and (b) other Foreign Office Ministers have made in relation to the arrest and possible extradition of General Pinochet. [55950]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None. The arrest and possible extradition of Senator Pinochet are a judicial not a political matter. There is no reason for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to intervene.

  Mr. Anwar Ibrahim
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Malaysia about the case of Mr. Anwar Ibrahim. [55951]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 October 1998,Official Report, columns 993–94, to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

CABINET OFFICE

  Overseas Visits (Advisers)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the overseas visits between 1 July and 19 October on which Ministers have been accompanied by special advisers and, for each trip,(a) the name of the adviser, (b) the class and cost of travel booked for the adviser, (c) the class of travel actually used by the adviser and (d) the accommodation and ancillary costs for the adviser. [56001]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  No special advisers accompanied me, or my predecessor, on overseas visits between 1 July and 19 October.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the non-departmental public bodies which have been(a) established and (b) abolished since 2 May 1997. [55730]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Since 2 May 1997, the Government have established 29 new non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and abolished 44. These are listed. The Government have also announced plans to abolish a further 37 NDPBs and Ministers are continuing to examine all the NDPBs they sponsor with a view to identifying further candidates for abolition.

  NDPBs established since 1 May 1997

  Advisory Committee for Disabled People in Employment and Training

  Better Regulation Task Force

  British Potato Council

  Civil Justice Council

  Civil Procedure Rule Committee

  Committee on Chemicals and Materials on Construction for use in Public Water Supplies and Swimming Pools

  Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland

  Development Awareness Working Group

  1178

  Disability Rights Task Force

  Docklands Light Railway

  Expert Panel on Sustainable Development Education

  Expert Group on Airborne Particles

  Expert Group on Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies

  Football Task Force

  Historic Royal Palaces

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland

  New Deal Task Force

  New Opportunities Fund

  Police Information Technology Organisation

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  Race Employment and Education Forum

  Race Relations Forum

  Royal Commission on Long Term Care of the Elderly

  Security Vetting Appeals Panel

  Skills Task Force

  Spectrum Management Advisory Group

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Youth Justice Board

  NDPBs abolished since 1 May 1997

  Advisory Committee for the Joint Environmental Markets Unit

  Advisory Committee on Design Quality in the NHS

  Advisory Committee on Plant and Machinery

  Advisory Committee on Service Candidates

  Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales

  Assessment Panel for Construction Research

  Citizen's Charter Panel of Advisers

  Consultative Panel on Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis

  Deregulation Task Force

  Local Government Property Commission for Scotland

  Local Government Staff Commission for England

  National Advisory Council for the Employment of People with Disabilities

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications

  Northern Ireland Citizen's Charter Advisory Panel

  Overseas Project Board

  Race Relations Employment Advisory Group

  Regional Panels in MAFF (nine)

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority

  Scottish Agricultural Consultative Panel

  Scottish Economic Council

  Scottish Seed Potato Development Council

  Staff Commission for Wales

  Supported Employment Advisory Group

  Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  Ulster Museum

  Urban Development Corporations (nine)

  Welsh Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the members who have been(a) appointed and (b) dismissed from non-departmental public bodies since 2 May 1997, giving in each case their declared political affiliation if any. [55729]
  1179
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Commissioner for Public Appointments collects statistics on appointments to non-departmental public bodies within his remit on an annual basis, including the declared political activity of successful candidates. His last annual report (placed in the Library of the House) contains such information on appointments made during the year ending 31 March 1998. The Commissioner requires that all appointments should be for a fixed term. Information on any appointments which are terminated early is not collected centrally.

  Marsham Street Buildings
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement about the future of the former Department of the Environment and Transport buildings on Marsham Street. [55717]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. John Locke, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John C. Locke to Sir Michael Spicer, dated 22 October 1998:
  The Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, Peter Kilfoyle, has asked me as Chief Executive of PACE with management responsibilities for the former Department of the Environment and Transport (DETR) building on Marsham Street, to respond to your Parliamentary Question about the future of this building.
  The building at 2 Marsham Street is a Government freehold property which until April this year was occupied by staff of the DETR. While it remains vacant, this Agency is responsible for its general upkeep to ensure it remains wind and watertight and is not subjected to vandalism of any kind.
  There is a possibility that Marsham Street will be used as temporary decant accommodation for another Government Department while its premises are refurbished. A decision on this is expected early in the New Year. If reuse of the building cannot be justified in Exchequer terms, the building will be demolished. This is expected to take some eighteen months following the letting of a contract.

HEALTH

  Music Therapy
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Ministers have responsibility for music therapy. [55625]

  Mr. Boateng
  My noble Friend the Baroness Hayman is the Minister responsible for therapy services, including music therapy.

  Fraud
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken in reported cases of(a) doctors, (b) opticians and (c) pharmacists who have defrauded the National Health Service; and if such incidents are reported to their professional bodies. [55531]

  Mr. Milburn
  Health authorities are responsible for investigating cases of fraud by practitioners. They may refer such cases to the relevant regulatory or professional body. Where criminal prosecution is being considered, the case will normally be referred for investigation by the police before being referred to a professional body.
  1180
  The Prescription Pricing Authority Fraud Investigation Unit provides expert advice and an investigative service to health authorities in England for prescription fraud.

  A director of counter fraud services within the National Health Service Executive was appointed on 1 September. A document outlining a comprehensive strategy for ensuring that the NHS in England has the professional resources it needs to prevent, deter and investigate all types of fraud will be published later this year.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England had been on hospital waiting lists for over one year at the latest available date. [55618]

  Mr. Milburn
  At the end of August 1998 there were 65,200 English residents waiting over 12 months for National Health Service treatment.

  Mid Essex NHS Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid Essex Hospital NHS Trust area had been waiting to see a consultant for more than(a) 0 to six months, (b) six to 11 months and (c) 12 months or more, on (i) 31 March 1997 and (ii) the latest available date. [55760]

  Mr. Milburn
  The number of people waiting to see a consultant at Mid Essex Hospital National Health Service Trust at 31 March 1997 and 30 June 1998 is given in the table:

  Number waiting at:

  13 to 25 weeks

  Time waited 26+weeks

  31 March 1997

  481

  74

  30 June1998

  1,348

  256

  Note:

  1. Figures refer to those waiting to see a consultant for first outpatient appointment following referral by a General Practitioner (medical or dental)

  2. Information on the number of patients waiting for less than 13 weeks is not collected centrally

  All health authorities and National Health Service trusts have agreed targets for reducing waiting lists by March 1999. Mid Essex Hospital NHS Trust is currently working with the North Thames Task Force and the National Patients' Access Team to ensure it meets its waiting list target.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid Essex Hospital NHS Trust area had been waiting for treatment for 12 months or more on(a) 31 March 1997 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available. [55759]

  Mr. Milburn
  The number of patients waiting for inpatient treatment at Mid Essex Hospital National Health Service Trust at 31 March 1997 and 31 August 1998 is given in the table:

  Number waiting at:

  12+ months

  31 March 1997

  104

  31 August 1998

  1,063

  Note:

  The figures refer to the number of people waiting for treatment as an ordinary admission or day case
  1181
  All health authorities and National Health Service trusts have agreed targets for reducing waiting lists by March 1999. Mid Essex Hospital NHS Trust is currently working with the North Thames Task Force and the National Patients' Access Team to ensure it meets its waiting list target.

  Overseas Visits (Advisers)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the overseas visits between 1 July and 19 October on which Ministers have been accompanied by special advisers and, for each trip,(a) the name of the adviser, (b) the class and cost of travel booked for the adviser, (c) the class of travel actually used by the adviser and (d) the accommodation and ancillary costs for the adviser. [56003]

  Ms Jowell
  None.

  Oxfordshire Health Authority
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Oxfordshire Health Authority area were waiting to see a consultant for 12 months or more on(a) 31 March 1997 and (b) the latest available date. [55761]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the number of patients waiting over 12 months for a first out-patient appointment following a general practitioner written referral is not collected centrally.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what factors underlay her decision to withdraw the offer of extra subsidy to local authorities to detect housing benefit fraud; [53277]

  (2) if she will require retrospective introduction of weekly benefit savings for the 1997–98 financial year; [53274]

  (3) for what reasons subsidy to local authorities will be lost if housing benefit (a) ceases and (b) is reduced before a designated fraud officer becomes involved; [53272]

  (4) what incentive she will provide for local authorities to detect housing benefit fraud; [53273]

  (5) when she will reply to the Local Government Association representations on the Draft Weekly Benefit Savings Subsidy Guide. [53267]

  Mr. Denham
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 July 1998, c. 474–75]: This Government are committed to taking tough action against all benefit fraud including Housing Benefit. Significant incentives for local authorities to detect Housing Benefit fraud are already in place. A financial incentive scheme has been in operation since 1993 which rewards local authorities for good performance in detecting benefit fraud. Payments of additional subsidy to local authorities to reward them for their anti-fraud work has risen year on year (£5.9 million in 1993/94 to £65.6 million in 1997/98).
  1182
  Recent National Audit Office and Audit Commission reports questioned the interpretation of the Subsidy Order by some local authorities when claiming additional subsidy for anti-fraud work. We have therefore made the criteria explicit in the Subsidy Order 1998. To qualify for this additional subsidy authorities must show that benefit was reduced or stopped following investigation by a designated fraud officer. In each case they must show that benefit has been overpaid as a result of fraud or, in a case where benefit has not been put into payment, an attempt was made to claim fraudulently and this was prevented by their action.

  The Department is still awaiting comments from the Local Government Association on the draft instructions on claiming weekly benefit savings. When received they will be considered and a reply issued as soon as possible. We have, however, already had the opportunity to consider some of the initial comments made to me by the Local Government Association and, as a result of this, the strengthened criteria for claiming fraud weekly benefit savings will not now be introduced for the 1997/98 financial year but will commence from 1 April 1998.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's forecast for spending on jobseekers allowance in(a) 1999–2000,(b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 on the basis of (i) the growth forecasts in the EFSR published in July and (ii) his revised growth forecasts. [55839]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Forecast expenditure on Jobseeker's Allowance

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA)

  3,746

  3,841

  3,977

  Contributory based JSA

  516

  523

  535

  Income based JSA

  3,230

  3,318

  3,442

  Notes:

  1. The Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998 was published in June 1998 and sets out the framework for the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in Chapter 4. These figures are consistent with those set out in the CSR White Paper published on 14 July 1998.

  2. There has been no revision to Social Security expenditure plans since the CSR.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) each region of England, the number of people whose main disabling condition is deafness who were awarded disability living allowance (i) between 1 June 1996 and 31 May 1997, (ii) between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998 and (iii) since 1 June 1998 (1) on their initial application, (2) at review and (3) at appeal. [55858]
  1183
  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

  Awards of disability living allowance between 1 June 1996 and 31 May 1997 for people whose main disabling conditions is deafness

  Region

  All awards

  On initial claim

  At review

  At appeal

  United Kingdom

  3,178

  1,841

  728

  607

  England1

  2,420

  1,400

  500

  520

  Great Britain1

  2,980

  1,700

  680

  600

  Northern Ireland2

  198

  141

  48

  7

  Awards of disability living allowance between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998 for people whose main disabling condition is deafness

  Region

  All awards

  On initial claim

  At review

  At appeal

  United Kingdom

  4,712

  2,447

  1,255

  1,010

  England1

  4,040

  2,100

  1,060

  880

  Great Britain1

  4,540

  2,320

  1,220

  1,000

  Northern Ireland2

  172

  127

  35

  10

  Awards of disability allowance between 1 June 1998 and 31 August 1998 for people whose main disabling condition is deafness

  Region

  All awards

  On initial claim

  At review

  At appeal

  United Kingdom

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England1

  120

  100

  0

  20

  Great Britain1

  1,020

  580

  220

  220

  Northern Ireland2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 DSS Analytical Services Division 5 per cent. data

  2 Northern Ireland DHSS 100 per cent. data

  Notes:

  1. Figures for awards made since 1 June 1998 are not available for Northern Ireland

  2. As the figures for regions within Great Britain are based on 5 per cent. data, the margins of error are too large for individual regions

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) each region of England the number of people who applied (i) successfully and (ii) unsuccessfully in the last year for disability living allowance. [55859]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Applications for disability living allowance in 1997

  Region

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  United Kingdom

  234,078

  282,469

  England1

  180,309

  209,494

  Wales1

  18,739

  21,627

  Scotland1

  21,179

  35,217

  Northern Ireland2

  13,851

  16,131

  1 DSS Analytical Services Division 100 per cent. data

  2 Northern Ireland DHSS 100 per cent. data

  Note:

  The only regional figures for Great Britain are those collected for the initial claims processed by the Disability Benefit Centres (DBCs) These serve different areas of the country and the boundaries are not clearly enough defined to be useful: the exceptions are Scotland which is served by Edinburgh and Glasgow DBCs and Wales which is served mainly by Cardiff DBC but to a small extent by Bristol DBC
  1184
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) each region of England the number of people whose main disability was deafness who applied (i) successfully and (ii) unsuccessfully in the last year for disability living allowance. [55860]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Applications for disability living allowance in 1997 for people whose main disabling condition is deafness1

  Region

  Successful applications

  United Kingdom

  2,502

  England1

  2,040

  Great Britain1

  2,380

  Northern Ireland2

  122

  1 DSS Analytical Services Division 5 per cent. data

  2 Northern Ireland DHSS 100 per cent. data

  Notes:

  Figures relate to awards made on initial application and relate to the 12 months ending 30 November 1997

  Figures giving a breakdown by medical condition are not collected by the Department for people who are unsuccessful in their initial application. As figures for regions within Great Britain are based on 5 per cent. data, the margins of error are too large for individual regions

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) each region of England the number of disabled people who were awarded disability living allowance (i) between 1 June 1996 and 31 May 1997, (ii) between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998 and (iii) since 1 June 1998 (1) on their initial application, (2) at review and (3) at appeal. [55857]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

  Awards of disability living allowance between 1 June 1996 and 31 May 1997

  Region

  All awards

  On initial claim

  At review

  At appeal

  United Kingdom

  309,514

  249,279

  45,699

  14,536

  England1

  233,040

  191,860

  30,500

  10,680

  North East

  19,080

  15,300

  2,320

  1,460

  North West

  32,700

  25,080

  5,680

  1,940

  Merseyside

  13,060

  9,540

  2,620

  900

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  27,640

  22,960

  3,160

  1,520

  East Midlands

  19,800

  16,940

  2,100

  760

  West Midlands

  27,300

  23,060

  3,160

  1,080

  East

  19,560

  17,120

  1,920

  520

  London

  31,300

  26,140

  3,980

  1,180

  South East

  22,960

  18,940

  3,280

  740

  South West

  19,640

  16,780

  2,280

  580

  Wales1

  23,780

  19,200

  3,640

  940

  Scotland1

  30,640

  22,920

  5,560

  2,160

  Northern Ireland2

  22,054

  15,299

  5,999

  756

  Sources:

  1 DSS Analytical Services Division 5 per cent. Data

  2 Northern Ireland DHSS 100 per cent. Data
  1185

  Awards of disability living allowance between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998

  Region

  All awards

  On initial claim

  At review

  At appeal

  United Kingdom

  266,174

  211,173

  40,939

  14,062

  England1

  202,380

  163,840

  28,600

  9,940

  North East

  15,540

  12,020

  2,120

  1,400

  North West

  26,400

  20,740

  4,240

  1,420

  Merseyside

  9,960

  6,760

  2,320

  880

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  22,340

  17,180

  3,720

  1,440

  East Midlands

  19,940

  16,640

  2,660

  640

  West Midlands

  24,100

  20,320

  3,020

  760

  East

  18,360

  15,560

  2,180

  620

  London

  26,720

  21,980

  3,620

  1,120

  South East

  21,540

  17,620

  2,920

  1,000

  South West

  17,480

  15,020

  1,800

  660

  Wales1

  19,140

  15,540

  2,820

  780

  Scotland1

  26,500

  19,020

  4,980

  2,500

  Northern Ireland2

  18,154

  12,773

  4,539

  842

  Sources:

  1 DSS Analytical Services Division 5 per cent. data

  2 Northern Ireland DHSS 100 per cent. data

  Awards of disability living allowance between 1 June 1998 and 31 Augest 1998

  Region

  All awards

  On initial claim

  At review

  At appeal

  United Kingdom

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England1

  44,980

  36,500

  5,200

  3,280

  North East

  3,400

  2,800

  300

  300

  North West

  6,100

  4,480

  840

  780

  Merseyside

  1,820

  1,320

  260

  240

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,100

  3,940

  680

  480

  East Midlands

  4,200

  3,680

  400

  120

  West Midlands

  6,160

  5,300

  640

  220

  East

  3,400

  2,820

  320

  260

  London

  6,460

  5,240

  780

  440

  South East

  4,860

  3,960

  620

  280

  South West

  3,480

  2,960

  360

  160

  Wales1

  4,180

  3,500

  500

  180

  Scotland1

  5,800

  4,080

  980

  740

  Northern Ireland2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Note:

  Figures for awards made since 1 June 1998 are not available for Northern Ireland

  Sources:

  1 DSS Analytical Services Division 5 per cent. data

  2 Northern Ireland DHSS 100 per cent. data

  Vaccine Damage
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to make a statement in respect of payment to vaccine-damaged children who are now adults other than those affected by payments in 1979. [55669]

  Mr. Timms
  Consideration is still being given to this complex and sensitive issue and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Pensions Review
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter to which the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made reference in his Oral Question on 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 948. [56347]

  Mr. Denham
  Yes.
  1186

  National Insurance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the reduction in national insurance contributions resulting from the raising of the starting point for employees' contributions in April 1999; how much of this sum will accrue to the benefit of employees with earnings above the upper earnings limit; and what increase in the upper earnings limit would be required to neutralise the effect on the income of the National Insurance Fund. [55681]

  Mr. Timms
  In his Budget statement on 17 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1097–112, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced the most radical changes to National Insurance contributions in over 20 years. He made it clear that some of these changes will be introduced from April 1999, but that raising the starting point for employees' contributions to the level of the single person's tax allowance would take place at a later date.

  Overseas Visits (Advisers)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the overseas visits between 1 July and 19 October on which Ministers have been accompanied by special advisers and, for each trip,(a) the name of the adviser, (b) the class and cost of travel booked for the adviser, (c) the class of travel actually used by the adviser and (d) the accommodation and ancillary costs for the adviser. [56002]

  Mr. Denham
  No such visits have been made.

  Agencies
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the involvement of the private sector in providing office support services for the Benefits Agency and Child Support Agency. [56407]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State announced in July 1997 that we would proceed with PRIME (Private Sector Resource Initiative for Management of the Estate) and that we would explore whether further private sector involvement could improve the delivery of associated office support services, mainly in the Benefits Agency but also within the Child Support Agency.

  We said that in proceeding with this project we expected to see an improved quality of services. We therefore asked officials to proceed with the tender but also to invite prices from in-house teams.

  We want to ensure that the public gets the best services at the best price.

  In the case of Accommodation and Office Services (AOS) we have looked at what both the private sector and in-house teams can offer and treated each case on its merits. During the process we have emphasised our concern for the treatment of any staff who transfer and stressed our commitment to the ongoing monitoring of suppliers in this respect.

  Today's announcement demonstrates these policies. The services to Scotland, Fylde and Wales will be retained in-house and provided by BA staff under formal service

  1187
  level agreements (SLAs). In these areas in-house staff have demonstrated their ability to provide the best value for money.

  For the other services, contracts have been awarded to:

  Trillium for office services to:

  Yorkshire and Tyne Tees

  North West Coast and Greater Manchester

  West Midlands and Mercia

  Haden Facilities Management for office services to:

  The South East, London and East Anglia

  The West Country and Chilterns.

  In these cases staff from this Department and from other suppliers will transfer to the new suppliers with their terms and conditions protected by TUPE and with monitoring arrangements in place to ensure that staff are fairly treated.

  These arrangements will provide the flexible, quality office services needed to support our modernisation of Social Security and our programme of welfare reform. One of the benefits of this approach is the rationalisation of the 48 contracts we inherited into a more flexible and efficient contracts regime to meet the changing business needs of the Benefits Agency and the Department.

  The total cost of these contracts is £161 million over a three year period.

  NIRS II Computer
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what level of compensation, and to which pension companies, has been offered by his Department as a result of late payments and national insurance contributions due to the difficulties with the introduction of the NIRS II system. [55847]

  Mr. Timms
  Pension companies will start to receive compensation payments for the delay to age-related rebates from 1 November 1998. The payment calculation is based on the assumption that payments should have been made, on average, by October following the end of the tax year to which the rebate relates.

  Payments made at the beginning of November will be increased by 0.5 per cent. Payments will be increased by a further 0.5 per cent. for each subsequent month until the expected level of payment is reached.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the NIRS II computer system to be fully operational; and if he will make a statement. [55852]

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the NIRS II system to be handling the number of cases which it was originally planned to handle. [55849]

  Mr. Timms
  The NIRS2 computer system is being introduced using a phased release strategy. The final phase, combining Release 2 and Release 3, is planned for April 1999.
  1188

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Temporary Office Accommodation
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what was the nature of the work carried out on the Lower Ground Floor Secretaries' Room which necessitated the removal of personnel and equipment to temporary accommodation from 4 August to 1 September; on what date the work commenced; and for how many days the room was required to be unoccupied. [55391]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  An Automatic Fire Detection system was installed in the Lower Ground Floor Secretaries' area. The decanting process commenced on the 4 August with re-occupation on 1 September. The conditions of the contract give the contractor possession of the site from 4 August for 27 days and work started on 8 August.

  State Opening
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Council if she will announce the date of the State Opening of Parliament. [56672]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As I announced in my Business Statement today, the new session of Parliament will be opened on 24 November 1998. I anticipate the House will be Prorogued late in the week preceding that.

  Recall Costs
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Council what was the direct cost of recalling the House for the sittings on 2 and 3 September, separately identifying(a) staff and (b) works costs. [55356]

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the President of the Council if she will estimate the cost to public funds of the recall of Parliament for 2 and 3 September. [55493]

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council what is the estimated total cost to public funds of the current recall of Parliament. [55465]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The estimated total cost, excluding works projects, is £33,200. The works costs cannot be known with certainty until contractors' claims for prolongation and disruption have all been received and verified. However, the total works cost may be of the order of £375,000.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council how many parliamentary staff, including security staff, were required to be present as a result of the recall of Parliament; and how many of these were paid(a) no extra, (b) standard hourly rates, (c) overtime rates and (d) expenses; and if she will make a statement. [55466]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I have been asked to reply on behalf of the President of the Council.

  Approximately 230 staff, excluding security staff, were present as a result of the recall of Parliament. Additional security costs amounted to £23,700. The only pay costs incurred for staff of the House were for night fees/allowances totalling £3,000 and overtime payments for Refreshment Department staff totalling £4,000.

  1189
  Expenses totalling £2,500 were incurred for overnight accommodation and late night transport etc. although further claims may still be submitted.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to make the Further Education Funding Council more accountable to the regions. [55106]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently appointed a number of additional representatives from the local authority sector to the FEFC's regional committees. In the future, FEFC regional committees will be working closely with the Regional Development Agencies.

  National Literacy Strategy
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress achieved on the Government's National Literacy Strategy. [55107]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The daily Literacy Hour began in primary schools this September. To support schools, we have provided training for every primary teacher, distributed over 300,000 copies of the literacy Framework for Teaching and allocated almost £60 million of funding, including support for over 200 local literacy consultants.

  New Deal (West Midlands)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal in the west midlands. [55108]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds has made a promising start throughout the country and in the West Midlands over 14,000 young people have started on the path to employment.

  Lifelong Learning
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to ensure that technologies used in(a) the lifelong learning initiatives, (b) the university for industry and (c) the national grid for learning are inter-operable; and if he will make a statement. [55109]

  Mr. Mudie
  The National Grid for Learning, the University for Industry and lifelong learning initiatives will be accessible via a range of technologies including the Internet, which offers an interoperable standard accessible to all users.

  Education Welfare Officers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve the training of education welfare officers. [55110]
  1190
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Local Education Authorities, as the employers, are responsible for making arrangements for the training and professional development of education welfare officers. The Department is providing support for EWO training through the recently announced "School Inclusion: Pupil Support" grant programme. We also actively support the work of the Training Advisory Group for the Education Welfare Service.

  Rural Schools
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to preserve the ability of parents in rural areas to select schools of their choice. [55111]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have made it clear that our presumption is against the closure of rural schools. We have recently published interim guidance on school admissions which aims to maximise parental preference in all areas of the country.

  Child Care
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new child care places will be created in 1997–98. [55112]

  Ms Hodge
  In 1997–98, 7,455 places were created through the Out of School Childcare Initiative in England, exceeding our target. This year, to support our National Childcare Strategy, we will create at least 40,000 new places through the Initiative and a further 20,000 places through other schemes.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of new child care places to be created this year. [55119]

  Ms Hodge
  In this financial year up to 2 August 1998, 4,270 new childcare places have been created through the Out of School Childcare Initiative (England). We have not yet received data from all the TECs for the summer holidays when many new schemes started, but we are confident that we are on course to meet the end of year target of 40,000 places.

  In addition, 10,000 new places will be created for pre-school children aged 0–3 and 4 year olds in full-time education through the £6 million in childcare grants allocated to local education authorities and Early Years Development Partnerships.

  A further 10,000 out of school childcare places will be created in further education colleges and other institutions in 1998 through a £5 million grant administered by the Further Education Funding Council.

  We will be making available £44 million to support Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships from next year. This money will help Partnerships to increase the number of childcare places beyond the 60,000 to be set up this year.

  Chief Inspector of Schools
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in which years since his appointment Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools has
  1191
  been awarded a bonus; and what was the value of each such bonus (a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of his salary. [55113]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following bonuses have been paid to Chris Woodhead, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England: in 1996, in respect of the period 1 September 1994 to 31 March 1996, 7 per cent. of salary (£5,697); in 1997, in respect of the year ended 31 March 1997, 10 per cent. of salary (£8,550); and in 1998, in respect of the year ended 31 March 1998, 10 per cent. of salary (£8,621).

  Learning Age
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the responses he has received from the consultation on the learning age. [55114]

  Mr. Mudie
  We have had nearly 3,000 responses to the Learning Age Green Paper—from members of the public, employers, education and training organisations and others. Our proposals have been widely welcomed. We are analysing and considering carefully all the detailed comments made and we will publish a summary of the responses in due course.

  School Meals
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress is being made with bringing in nutritional standards for school meals. [55116]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We published "Ingredients for Success", our consultation paper on nutritional standards for school lunches, on 15 October.

  Education Action Zones
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the timetable and target numbers for additional schools to become part of education action zones. [55117]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I expect to invite applications for more zones in the New Year.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment. [55120]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The internationally comparable Labour Force Survey measure showed 1.82 million people as ILO unemployed in June to August 1998 (a rate of 6.3 per cent.).

  The more recent claimant unemployment figure, for September 1998, was 1.3 million (a rate of 4.6 per cent.).

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations his Department has received on the percentage change in national unemployment during the last month. [55123]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have received no such representations in the last month.
  1192

  Employment Creation Measures
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the impact of his Department's employment creation measures. [55121]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest figures from the New Deal for Young Unemployed People show that over half of those leaving the Gateway did so to start work and most of those went into unsubsidised jobs.

  It is important, however, to consider the net overall effect of the New Deal and we have therefore put in place an extensive and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation strategy to realise this.

  Higher Education (Cornwall)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the future of higher education in Cornwall. [55122]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations about the future of higher education in Cornwall. I welcome the initiative taken by the three higher education institutions in Cornwall to form a new partnership to develop plans for improving the quality and range of higher education opportunities in Cornwall.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from grammar school heads about his policies towards grammar schools. [55124]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  100 responses have been received from grammar school headteachers and governing bodies about the draft Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations which were sent out for consultation on 3 June. Revised regulations will be debated in the normal way.

  University for Industry
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to expand the university for industry pilots. [55126]

  Mr. Mudie
  Following the European Social Fund ADAPT Third Call for Applications earlier this year, over 100 projects are being established to contribute towards the University for Industry's development. We expect further relevant projects to be funded through the ESF Objective 4 programme.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the Welfare to Work programme in helping unemployed people over the age of 25 years off benefit and back into work. [55128]

  Ms Hodge
  It is too early to make an assessment of New Deal for people aged 25 or more. It only started in June of this year. I expect to make a statement in November.
  1193

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will visit the Farnham and Godalming sixth-form colleges to discuss the allocation of funds for 16 to 18-year-olds. [55129]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no current plans to do so.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the oral statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 17 March 1998,Official Report, column 1097, if he will make a statement on the training of 20,000 bug busters. [55948]

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have to date(a) applied to become millennium bugbusters and (b) successfully completed the training. [55867]

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many bugbusters have been trained to date; [55966]

  (2) how much money his Department has spent to date on grants to SMEs, under the bugbusters programme; [55967]

  (3) how much money his Department has spent to date on advertising and marketing its bugbusters programme; and how much it intends to spend in the rest of 1998–99; [55968]

  (4) how many SMEs have so far received grants under his Department's bugbusters training programme; [55969]

  (5) how many training organisations have become accredited providers under the bugbusters training programme to date. [55970]

  Mr. Mudie
  The infrastructure for the Bug Buster programme is now in place. 160 training providers throughout the country have been accredited by the IT National Training Organisation to offer courses. At 16 October, 284 people had started the training: 194 of them had completed courses. A further 620 were booked to go on courses. There is a short time lag between individuals completing courses and payments being made to training providers. As a result only a small number of grants have so far been paid out to small and medium sized enterprises.

  Our key objective has been to put in place a high quality programme in which employers would have confidence. It has inevitably taken time to design courses, to accredit training providers and for Training and Enterprise Councils to plan local provision and arrange contracts. However, take up by employers in the early stages of the full operation of the programme has been slower than expected. Some smaller employers still do not appreciate fully the threat posed by the year 2000 problem. Others are concerned about the costs of training.

  Action is being taken to address both of these issues. A major marketing and publicity campaign, is being launched at the end of this month. This is in addition to the local marketing carried out by TECs. Courses will now be offered free to employers. This change has been made possible by lower than expected fees being charged
  1194
  by training providers. In addition, IT consultancy firms will now be eligible to claim grant for trainees they take on to work with employers.

  The progress of the programme is being kept under constant review. Take up of places under the programme depends on employers' willingness to take this opportunity offered to provide their staff with the skills necessary to deal with an important business problem.

  Overseas Visits (Advisers)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the overseas visits between 1 July and 19 October on which Ministers have been accompanied by special advisers and, for each trip,(a) the name of the adviser, (b) the class and cost of travel booked for the adviser, (c) the class of travel actually used by the adviser and (d) the accommodation and ancillary costs for the adviser. [56004]

  Mr. Mudie
  No overseas visits were undertaken between 1 July and 19 October on which Ministers were accompanied by Special Advisers.

  Teachers (Fixed-term Contracts)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of teaching staff in(a) local authority schools and (b) grant maintained schools are currently on fixed-term contracts, broken down by local education authority. [55831]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The percentage of full and part-time fixed term contracts (of one month or over) for teaching staff in local authority maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England at January 1998 are given in the table. Teachers with more than one contract have had all contracts included in the calculation. Similar information for grant maintained schools is not held by the Department.

  Percentage

  LEA

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All contracts

  City of London

  21.4

  14.3

  19.0

  Camden

  3.9

  8.7

  5.0

  Greenwich

  4.0

  37.9

  11.9

  Hackney

  5.3

  11.6

  6.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  11.2

  84.6

  19.8

  Islington

  4.6

  7.4

  5.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4.8

  19.1

  8.0

  Lambeth

  6.0

  36.4

  10.7

  Lewisham

  7.1

  12.7

  8.3

  Southwark

  9.3

  28.4

  11.8

  Tower Hamlets

  8.0

  35.3

  11.9

  Wandsworth

  11.4

  32.5

  15.6

  City of Westminster

  6.5

  30.8

  10.5

  Barking

  4.9

  51.8

  8.6

  Barnet

  6.4

  25.3

  10.8

  Bexley

  4.5

  26.0

  7.7

  Brent

  9.2

  51.3

  15.8

  Bromley

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Croydon

  5.8

  46.6

  13.4

  Ealing

  6.4

  49.1

  13.1

  Enfield

  4.2

  21.1

  6.2

  Haringey

  3.2

  9.4

  4.0

  Harrow

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Havering

  3.9

  60.7

  13.9

  1195

  Percentage

  LEA

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All contracts

  Hillingdon

  4.0

  42.9

  10.5

  Hounslow

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Kingston

  6.2

  22.9

  10.0

  Merton

  8.5

  43.1

  15.0

  Newham

  3.3

  26.9

  4.5

  Redbridge

  3.1

  28.0

  6.5

  Richmond

  8.3

  64.2

  25.2

  Sutton

  5.2

  31.0

  9.4

  Waltham Forest

  3.1

  19.0

  4.9

  Birmingham

  6.1

  26.0

  8.1

  Coventry

  3.6

  23.6

  6.6

  Dudley

  9.7

  48.6

  13.2

  Sandwell

  8.0

  43.6

  11.2

  Solihull

  5.8

  42.9

  10.7

  Walsall

  5.7

  33.8

  8.8

  Wolverhampton

  4.3

  24.8

  6.6

  Knowsley

  5.6

  13.2

  6.1

  Liverpool

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  St. Helens

  4.0

  29.5

  5.5

  Sefton

  6.8

  26.3

  8.8

  Wirral

  1.0

  5.8

  1.5

  Bolton

  4.8

  30.7

  7.2

  Bury

  5.5

  30.5

  8.2

  Manchester

  8.6

  37.7

  11.0

  Oldham

  6.6

  59.3

  11.7

  Rochdale

  5.2

  36.0

  8.3

  Salford

  4.3

  33.8

  5.4

  Stockport

  8.5

  53.1

  13.9

  Tameside

  6.6

  38.0

  9.0

  Trafford

  9.6

  62.0

  13.4

  Wigan

  6.6

  38.4

  9.3

  Barnsley

  5.9

  30.1

  7.0

  Doncaster

  4.8

  33.3

  7.5

  Rotherham

  6.6

  33.2

  9.1

  Sheffield

  6.8

  31.3

  11.3

  Bradford

  8.9

  27.2

  11.5

  Calderdale

  6.9

  30.1

  9.7

  Kirklees

  8.2

  45.6

  13.5

  Leeds

  4.3

  20.9

  6.2

  Wakefield

  7.1

  76.4

  11.3

  Gateshead

  6.9

  55.6

  11.2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5.4

  40.8

  8.8

  North Tyneside

  6.0

  28.3

  8.3

  South Tyneside

  6.2

  52.6

  9.7

  Sunderland

  6.1

  45.0

  7.9

  Isles of Scilly

  0.0

  55.6

  17.9

  Bath and NE Somerset

  7.2

  32.0

  11.9

  City of Bristol

  9.5

  54.4

  18.8

  North Somerset

  4.9

  41.3

  10.7

  South Gloucestershire

  5.5

  37.2

  11.7

  Hartlepool

  8.3

  64.2

  12.0

  Middlesbrough

  7.7

  83.9

  11.4

  Redcar and Cleveland

  6.7

  38.5

  10.0

  Stockton on Tees

  5.4

  33.3

  8.9

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  3.6

  47.8

  7.5

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  5.9

  30.3

  9.3

  North East Lincolnshire

  5.7

  17.9

  6.8

  North Lincolnshire

  4.7

  36.2

  8.4

  North Yorkshire

  6.5

  58.4

  16.0

  York

  4.8

  37.7

  10.7

  Bedfordshire

  8.2

  36.4

  12.7

  Luton

  10.5

  36.3

  14.3

  Buckinghamshire

  10.1

  44.1

  17.8

  Milton Keynes

  4.6

  85.0

  16.8

  Derbyshire

  4.2

  21.7

  7.0

  Derby

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Dorset

  7.6

  39.7

  13.3

  Poole

  6.1

  39.6

  11.4

  Bournemouth

  5.7

  33.3

  9.9

  Durham

  9.6

  80.1

  14.4

  Darlington

  6.9

  12.5

  7.7

  East Sussex

  6.3

  41.2

  13.4

  Brighton and Hove

  0.2

  0.8

  0.3

  Hampshire

  5.7

  43.5

  11.8

  Portsmouth

  5.9

  38.2

  9.9

  Southampton

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Leicester

  7.9

  62.8

  21.4

  Leicester City

  10.1

  67.3

  21.3

  Rutland

  27.0

  0.0

  20.3

  Staffordshire

  6.6

  45.9

  11.1

  Stoke

  7.2

  34.8

  9.3

  1196

  Percentage

  LEA

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All contracts

  Wiltshire

  13.5

  50.8

  21.8

  Swindon

  8.2

  53.9

  14.3

  Berkshire

  6.6

  34.7

  12.5

  Cambridgeshire

  6.1

  39.6

  11.7

  Cheshire

  8.7

  53.9

  14.5

  Cornwall

  6.9

  50.6

  16.6

  Cumbria

  9.0

  75.4

  24.3

  Devon

  7.0

  42.0

  13.9

  Essex

  4.4

  34.8

  9.3

  Gloucestershire

  13.0

  36.5

  19.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  6.5

  37.5

  12.1

  Hertfordshire

  6.2

  35.4

  11.9

  Isle of Wight

  6.2

  48.1

  12.4

  Kent

  4.9

  47.0

  13.1

  Lancashire

  6.2

  46.8

  11.0

  Lincolnshire

  5.5

  34.6

  9.5

  Norfolk

  3.6

  77.0

  15.4

  Northamptonshire

  7.6

  50.5

  13.7

  Northumberland

  4.4

  43.6

  11.9

  Nottinghamshire

  2.4

  12.0

  3.7

  Oxfordshire

  6.2

  35.5

  11.4

  Shropshire

  9.8

  64.4

  18.6

  Somerset

  5.5

  37.0

  11.7

  Suffolk

  4.9

  48.6

  13.4

  Surrey

  5.4

  34.8

  11.5

  Warwickshire

  7.5

  47.6

  15.1

  West Sussex

  4.8

  26.5

  8.8

  Total

  6.2

  41.2

  11.5

  School Reserve Accounts
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what estimates he has made of the amount of money currently held in reserve accounts by schools in(a) England and Wales, (b) Cheshire and (c) Warrington; [55833]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the amount of money from delegated budgets underspent by schools in (a) England and Wales and (b) Cheshire in each of the past five years. [55834]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table shows the amount held as balances by LEA schools in(a) England and(b) Cheshire for each of the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97. Responsibility for schools in Wales rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Information on the position at the end of the financial year 1997–98 will not be available centrally until local education authorities publish their outturn statements later in the Autumn. I will write to my hon. Friend when those figures are available, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Balances held by LEA schools

  £000

  Financial years

  (a) England

  (b) Cheshire

  1992–93

  605,304

  16,677

  1993–94

  646,810

  16,196

  1994–95

  649,949

  15,314

  1995–96

  581,456

  14,410

  1996–97

  523,679

  13,375

  School Finances (Auditing)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to
  1197
  introduce sample auditing of school finances; and if he will make a statement. [55832]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Under the Fair Funding arrangements to be introduced from 1999, local education authorities will be responsible for determining their own audit arrangements for school expenditure, and these arrangements (which normally include a cycle of school-based audits) will be authorised by schemes made under section 48 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Individual schools may also be audited as part of the external audit regime for LEAs, which is determined by the Audit Commission.

  Headteachers (Salary Increases)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the average percentage salary increase received by(a) primary school headteachers and (b) secondary school headteachers for each of the past five years; [55836]

  (2) what was the average percentage salary increase received by (a) primary school deputy headteachers and (b) secondary school deputy headteachers in each of the past five years. [55835]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The average percentage salary increase from 31 March each year to 31 March the following year, for full-time headteachers and deputy headteachers in England and Wales, is as follows:

  Maintained nursery/primary

  Maintained secondary

  Headteachers

  1992 to 1993

  9.2

  9.6

  1993 to 1994

  4.3

  5.2

  1994 to 1995

  4.2

  4.6

  1995 to 1996

  3.7

  4.1

  1996 to 1997

  4.8

  5.4

  Deputy headteachers

  1992 to 1993

  9.8

  9.7

  1993 to 1994

  6.2

  5.1

  1994 to 1995

  3.9

  4.6

  1995 to 1996

  3.5

  3.6

  1996to 1997

  4.5

  4.7

  The percentage increases include the effects both of the annual teachers' pay award and the effects of individual postholders' movement up the pay spine.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people under the New Deal in(a) England and (b) Wales who have entered full-time employment. [55105]

  Ms Hodge
  In England 18,500 young people under the 18–24 New Deal have entered employment. In Wales the figure is 2,000. This is a promising start.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of New Deal trainees were placed in subsidised employment at the latest available date. [55118]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Of those young people taking part in New Deal options 44 per cent. have entered subsidised jobs.
  1198

  LEA Schools (Managerial Responsibilities)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he plans to help LEA schools take on the managerial responsibilities required under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. [55147]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  LEA schools already have much experience in managing delegated budgets, and in exercising the staffing powers associated with financial delegation. They are therefore well-placed to take on the responsibilities resulting from the decisions on further delegation recently announced by the Government in the light of responses to the consultation paper "Fair Funding". A number of elements in the Standards Fund programmes for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are designed to support training for heads and governors relating to the Government's key priorities.

  New Deal (Widows)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if widows are eligible for the same benefits, incentives and advice as other lone parents under the New Deal; and if he will make a statement. [55155]

  Ms Hodge
  The term "lone parents" covers all those who are bringing up their child or children on their own, and this includes widows and widowers. All lone parents with dependent children who are on Income Support can join the New Deal for Lone Parents. Since April, the New Deal for Lone Parents has been available across the country to lone parents who make a new claim for Income Support. From 26 October, it will be extended to include those with existing claims for Income Support. Those lone parents whose youngest child is aged over five will be sent a letter inviting them to a meeting with a Personal Adviser. The service is also available to lone parents with children under five who wish to participate.

  Careers Services
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 28 July 1998,Official Report, column 137, if he will make a statement on the activities of commercial companies providing careers information which have been able to generate a surplus through the efficient delivery of their contracts, legitimate dividends to shareholders or cash transfers to a parent company, indicating the amount attributed to shareholders retained as company profits and the amount of cash transfers to parent companies in the last period for which figures are available. [55458]

  Mr. Mudie
  Twenty seven of the sixty six Careers Services operating under contract with the Department are run by companies limited by share with the power to distribute profits to the shareholders. The majority of these organisations have retained within the company any profits arising from efficient delivery of the Careers Service. The value of the contracts with the 66 Careers Services was just over £220 million in 1996-97. According to the latest information available, which is taken from the statutory accounts for the financial year ended 31 March 1997, dividends amounting to some £359,300 were paid in respect of contracts held by Lifetime Careers, Guidance Enterprises Ltd, Careers
  1199
  Management Ltd and Northumberland Guidance Company. West London Careers Service Ltd and CfBT Thames Careers Guidance Ltd made a transfer of £820,000 to their parent company CfBT which is an educational trust which includes within its objects the provision of careers information, guidance and advice.

  Middle and First Schools
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his policy on middle and first schools. [55099]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have no policies which relate solely to middle and first schools. Schools should be organised to deliver the highest possible standards of education and to reflect parental preference. Local Education Authorities and School Governing Bodies are best placed to decide on the most effective pattern of provision within their areas, taking account of local circumstances.

  Undergraduate Degree Students (Costs)
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average annual cost of a full-time undergraduate degree student at(a) Oxford and Cambridge universities, (b) all United Kingdom universities and (c) previously PCFC funded institutions. [55651]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 19 October 1998]: The average annual funding through HEFCE grant and tuition fees for teaching a full-time undergraduate degree student is around £4,000 in English universities and colleges, including previously PCFC funded institutions. The comparable figure for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, which attract additional funding via the college fee, is around £5,800.

  Higher Education Staff
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to report to Parliament the recommendations of the Independent Review Committee on Higher Education Staff Pay and Conditions. [55762]

  Mr. Mudie
  The pay and conditions of staff in higher education are a matter for the employers. The Independent Review Committee was set up by the Universities and Employers Association (UCEA) to look into the framework for determining pay and conditions of service in the higher education sector. The Review Committee will report to UCEA and it will be for the employers and unions to respond to any recommendations.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make changes to the area cost adjustment in time to affect the 1999–2000 schools' budgets. [55127]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We will announce our decisions on the SSA formula, including the area cost adjustment, for 1999–2000 later in the autumn according to the normal timetable.
  1200

TREASURY

  Retail Prices Index
  Dr. Lienee Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the research by the Office for National Statistics into bias in the Retail Prices Index to be published. [56025]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 22 October 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on when the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects the research by the ONS into bias in the Retail Prices Index (RPI) to be published.
  Our work programme into potential bias in the RPI is an expansive one that will look into a number of conceptual and technical issues relating to index number construction. We have identified those aspects of the current methodology which should be given the highest priority and will undertake research on these first. A description of the research programme will be published in the ONS publication Economic Trends.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more specific about the time of completion of particular research projects at this stage but further consideration will be given to the precise form and timing of dissemination as the work progresses further.
  As you know, our initial assessment of the potential for bias in the RPI was published in an article in the October 1997 edition of Economic Trends entitled Implications of the US Boskin report for the UK Retail Prices Index. A copy of Economic Trends is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Overseas Visits (Advisers)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the overseas visits between 1 July and 19 October on which Ministers have been accompanied by special advisers and for each trip(a) the name of the adviser, (b) the class and cost of travel booked for the adviser, (c) the class of travel actually used by the adviser and (d) the accommodation and ancillary cost for the adviser. [56007]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on 24 July 1998,Official Report, column 750, and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 31 July 1998, Official Report, columns 663–64. Special advisers, along with other departmental officials, have accompanied Ministers to meetings of European finance ministers and to international meetings including the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Meeting and the IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 15 September, ref. 3/05775/1998. [55752]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 20 October.
  1201
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 1 July, ref. 3/05072/1998. [55753]

  Dawn Primarolo
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) received an interim reply to his letter of 1 July on 14 July. A full reply will be sent when an announcement is made about the outcome of the Government's review of the withdrawal of payable tax credits from individuals after 5 April 1999.

  Transport White Paper
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he held with non-Governmental bodies about transport policy and the Transport White Paper in the three months before the publication of the White Paper; and which of these meetings were attended by employees of professional lobby consultants. [55269]

  Mr. Byers
  Prior to the publication of the Government's White Paper "A New Deal for Transport", the Government were keen to hear the views of all interested parties and accordingly consulted widely before any policy decisions were taken. Between 21 August and 14 November 1997, the Government carried out a major consultation exercise resulting in over 7,300 written responses and a number of consultation meetings and seminars throughout the UK. It is intended that this consultation be an ongoing process. In the three months prior to the publication of the Government's White Paper, the Chancellor did not hold any meetings with non-governmental bodies specifically in relation to transport policy.

  Cross-border Smuggling
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual loss of UK hydrocarbon duty on(a) petrol, (b) diesel and (c) other fuels from cross-border smuggling. [55731]

  Ms Hewitt
  HM Customs and Excise have no estimates for the revenue lost to the Exchequer through these activities.

  Euro (Conversion Costs)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the costs of converting to the euro for(a) Government departments, (b) the financial sector and (c) the economy as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [55727]

  Ms Hewitt
  The cost of the changeover should the UK decide to join the euro would depend on the manner in which businesses and other organisations were to approach the changeover. The extent to which organisations have considered the euro as a factor when making investment decisions prior to joining would also be a factor.

  The Government are committed to publish an Outline National Changeover Plan which will set out the steps involved should the UK join the single currency. Work on the plan is being carried out in consultation with a wide range of representative organisations. This will help
  1202
  the selection of changeover arrangements which would be practical and cost-effective for a wide range of businesses and other organisations.

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's revised forecast for the public sector net cash requirement in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, and (c) 2001–02 following the revisions to his growth forecast. [55838]

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his Department's current forecast for tax receipts in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; [55722]

  (2) what is his Department's current forecast for (a) corporation tax receipts and (b) VAT receipts in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [55724]

  Ms Hewitt
  A new forecast of the public finances will be published in the Pre-Budget Report on 3 November.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on UK interest rates of(a) the decision to introduce a statutory minimum wage and (b) his spending plans published in July. [55837]

  Ms Hewitt
  Interest rate decisions are a matter for the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. The MPC sets interest rates to meet the Government's inflation target, taking into account all available information. We will continue to give the MPC one hundred per cent. support in whatever difficult decisions it has to make on interest rates.

  Revised Growth Forecast
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what briefing was given by his special advisers regarding the revised growth forecast. [55841]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The revised growth forecast will be published in the Pre-Budget Report on 3 November.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons his intention to publish revised growth forecasts was first announced(a) to the IMF and (b) on 6 October. [55844]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Annual Meetings of the IMF and World Bank always discuss the world economic situation. Previous Chancellors have used this occasion to comment on the prospects for the UK. And other Finance Ministers comment on their own economies. It would have been unusual for the Chancellor not to do so in his statement to the Annual Meeting on 6 October. And in view of the rapid deterioration in the world economic outlook since the summer, it would have been even less credible not to acknowledge that the Government's next published forecast would include a downward revision to growth in 1999.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the
  1203
  market's perception of the independence of the Bank of England as regards UK interest rates of his statements on the level of UK interest rates. [55842]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor does not comment on the month to month decisions of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. Market expectations of inflation remain close to the inflation target and long-term interest rates are at the lowest levels in 35 years.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he had with the Governor of the Bank of England in the month prior to 8 October. [55840]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor has regular discussions with the Governor every month.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions have taken place between the Treasury and the Bank of England on the circumstances in which action would be taken under section 19 of the Bank of England Act 1998 relating to emergency powers. [56349]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor has no plans to use the emergency powers under section 19 of the Bank of England Act 1998.

  Pre-Budget Report
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish his pre-Budget report. [55845]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave on 21 October 1998,Official Report, column 111, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin).

  Savings Ratio
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the impact on the savings ratio arising from(a) the abolition of repayment dividend tax credits and (b) the abolition of TESSAs and PEPs. [55723]

  Ms Hewitt
  Changing the tax treatment will encourage savings on a sustainable basis in the long term, promoting economic prosperity and rebalancing tax relief towards those who need it.

  European Single Currency
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what rate of exchange each of the 11 countries will join the European single currency on 1 January 1999. [55943]

  Ms Hewitt
  The bilateral conversion rates between currencies joining in the first wave were pre-announced in a declaration by the Finance Ministers and central bank governors of participating member states on 2 May 1998. Copies of the declaration have been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. Details of the rates are also available on the Treasury's Internet Web-site. These bilateral rates will be used to determine conversion rates against the euro on 31 December 1998.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria will be used to establish the rate of exchange at which the UK could join the single European currency. [55946]
  1204
  Ms Hewitt
  If and when the UK joined the single currency, the rate at which Sterling would join would be decided then, in conjunction with our European partners. The rate would need to be compatible with economic fundamentals in the UK and with sustainable convergence between the UK and other euro-area economies.

  Monetary Policy Committee
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the membership of the Monetary Policy Committee. [55792]

  Ms Hewitt
  The members of the Monetary Policy Committee have fixed terms of office which have been publicly announced. The Chancellor has no intention of changing these. Two members' terms are due for renewal in June 1999.

  Population Censuses
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those 1901–1991 decennial population censuses(a) for which the then Registrar General did not promise informants that the householders' forms would be treated as confidential for 100 years and (b) for which the Lord Chancellor has not granted, and is not intending to grant, the Registrar General statutory permission for an extended 100-year retention of the census forms. [55824]

  Ms Hewitt
  In the period 1901–1991, only the 1981 and 1991 Census forms have contained specific assurances from the Registrar General for England and Wales with regard to the 100 year closure period, as specified under the terms of the Lord Chancellor's Instrument 12 of the Public Records Act 1958.

  Access to the census returns prior to 1920 is governed by the Public Records Act 1958, section 5(1). They are closed to public inspection for 100 years by virtue of Lord Chancellor's Instrument No 12 of June 1966. The returns for 1901 and 1911 are in the custody of the Public Record Office.

  Access to the census returns of 1921, 1951 and 1961 is covered by the Census Act 1920, as amended by the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991. The Public Records Act 1958 section 3(4) permits those public records selected for permanent preservation to be retained for more than 30 years by the person responsible for them, with the Lord Chancellor's approval. In the case of census returns that person is the Registrar General, and permission is sought from the Lord Chancellor for the retention of census records every 10 years. The Lord Chancellor has granted permission for the census records for 1921, 1951 and 1961 to be retained by the Registrar General. The census returns for 1931 were destroyed by fire, and no census was taken in 1941.

  The census returns for 1971, 1981 and 1991 are similarly covered by the Census Act 1920, and the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991. No retention instrument is yet necessary for the returns for 1971, 1981 and 1991 since the records are less than 30 years old.
  1205

HOME DEPARTMENT

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the application for the extradition of General Pinochet from the United Kingdom. [55754]

  Mr. Straw
  Senator Pinochet was arrested on 16 October 1998 on the basis of a provisional warrant issued under section 8 of the Extradition Act 1989 by the Bow Street Magistrate, in response to a request transmitted to the United Kingdom police via Interpol, from the Spanish authorities. Under the European Convention on Extradition, the Spanish authorities have 40 days—until 25 November in this case—to submit a formal extradition request. If the deadline is not met, Senator Pinochet will be discharged.

  I will consider the formal extradition request against the requirements of the Extradition Act 1989. I must decide whether to issue an Authority to Proceed, exercising my discretion under the Act. I will consider, among a range of issues, whether the offences are extradition crimes; whether the request is properly authenticated; whether the offences are of a political character; and any compassionate circumstances. This will not be a political decision; I am exercising my statutory responsibilities.

  If I decide to issue an Authority to Proceed, the Spanish request will pass to the United Kingdom courts, where it will be considered, in the first instance, at Bow Street Magistrates' Court in a committal hearing, with routes of appeal to the Divisional Court and the House of Lords. If the request passes through the court stages, it reverts to me to take a final decision on surrender, again governed by the Extradition Act 1989. If I decide not to issue an Authority to Proceed, Senator Pinochet will be discharged.

  Senator Pinochet's legal representatives have now lodged a writ of habeas corpus against his detention. The hearing has been adjourned until Monday 26 October.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the charges against General Pinochet contained in the extradition application by the Spanish judicial authorities. [55757]

  Mr. Straw
  The formal extradition request for Senator Pinochet, which must be submitted by the Spanish authorities within 40 days of his arrest, will contain particulars of the offences of which he is accused under Spanish law. These will be converted into equivalent charges under English law when the formal request is considered. The provisional warrant issued by the Bow Street Magistrate on 16 October for Senator Pinochet's arrest cites the offence of murder; I will re-examine this in the light of the formal extradition request.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date General Pinochet last arrived in the United Kingdom. [55755]

  Mr. Straw
  Senator Pinochet last arrived in the United Kingdom on 22 September 1998.
  1206
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on(a) how many occasions and (b) what dates General Pinochet has visited the United Kingdom in the last five years. [55756]

  Mr. Straw
  I understand that Senator Pinochet has visited the United Kingdom five times in the last five years. In addition to his current visit, I understand that he visited in February and June 1994, October 1995 and October 1996.

  Overseas Visits (Advisers)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the overseas visits between 1 July and 19 October on which Ministers have been accompanied by special advisers and, for each trip,(a) the name of the adviser, (b) the class and cost of travel booked for the adviser, (c) the class of travel actually used by the adviser and (d) the accommodation and ancillary costs for the adviser. [55997]

  Mr. Straw
  Neither my Ministers nor I have been accompanied overseas by Special Advisers between 1 July and 19 October 1998.

  Prisoners (Health Care)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the report of the Joint Prison Service/Department of Health Working Group on the future organisation of prisoners' health care. [55830]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Ministers have been working closely with the Prison Service on these issues. I expect to receive the report of the Joint Prison Service/ Department of Health Working Group on the future organisation of prisoners' health care very shortly. The Government will consider the group's findings and recommendations and make an announcement in due course.

  Temazepam
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many export licences were issued, and for what quantity, of Temazepam(a) capsules and (b) tablets in each year between 1990 and 1998; [55183]

  (2) how many Temazepam (a) tablets and (b) capsules were manufactured in the United Kingdom in each year since 1992. [55163]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Records for production of Temazepam, a drug contained in Schedule 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985, are required to be kept for a period of two years only. Export licence numbers are not routinely recorded as most consignments are covered by blanket export licences.

  The following information is available from existing records:

  1996

  1997

  Export

  Tablets

  47,150

  43,192

  Capsules

  3,288,500

  1,353,860

  1207

  1996

  1997

  Manufacture

  Tablets

  94,260,000

  48,580,000

  Capsules

  9,760,000

  —

  Young Offenders (Drugs)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes his Department has made to the requirement for young offenders to be tested for drugs; and what plans he has to require young offenders taking drugs to undertake treatment programmes. [55139]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced a new community sentence aimed at drug misusing offenders who commit offences to fund their drugs habit: the drug treatment and testing order. It is available to the courts in respect of offenders aged 16 or over and is currently being piloted under the management of the probation service in Liverpool, Croydon and Gloucestershire. Offenders who are considered to be susceptible to treatment and who express willingness to do so, will have to undergo treatment for their drug misuse, monitored by random and compulsory testing. Plans are also in hand to pilot the new order in Scotland.

  The Act also introduces the action plan order for 10 to 17 year-olds, which is a new community sentence aimed at addressing young offenders' offending behaviour. An action plan order will be tailored for the individual young offender and may include elements such as, for example, drug treatment programmes.

  In 1995, the Prison Service introduced a programme of mandatory drug testing. In this scheme all offenders, including young offenders, may be tested for drug misuse. The Prison Service is currently addressing access to, as well as availability and quality of, treatment programmes for young offenders held in Prison Service establishments. This is a key element of the Prison Service's Drug Strategy launched in May this year.

  Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which (i) communities and (ii) organisations in(a) Scotland, (b) Cornwall, (c) Wales, (d) Northern Ireland, (e) elsewhere in the United Kingdom, (f) Isle of Man and (g) the Channel Islands, have been invited to submit evidence to the Government in preparation for its report to the Council of Europe on progress made by the United Kingdom under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities; [55447]

  (2) what measures he has taken to ensure that national minorities are able to submit comments on the Government's report to the Council of Europe on progress made by the United Kingdom since ratifying the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. [55448]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have written to the organisations listed to seek their views on the issues which might be covered in the United Kingdom's report and intend to consult them once the report has been drafted:1208

  Commission for Racial Equality

  The Runnymede Trust

  Churches Commission for Racial Justice

  West Indian Standing Conference

  National Council of Hindu Temples

  The Sikh Council for Inter-Faith Relations

  Board of Deputies of British Jews

  Joint Council for Anglo-Caribbean Churches

  Union Muslim Organisations

  The Sikh Forum (UK)

  Anti-Racist Alliance

  1990 Trust

  The Muslim College

  Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants

  Black Jewish Forum

  Interfaith Network

  Society of Black Lawyers

  Al-Khoei Foundation

  Inner Cities Religious Council

  Muslim Council of Great Britain

  Justice

  Liberty

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (SACHR)

  SIA

  Institute of Race Relations

  Chinese Community in Britain

  The African and Caribbean Finance Forum

  Inter-Parliamentary Council Against Antisemitism

  Policy Studies Institute

  Greater Sylhet Development and Welfare Council in the United Kingdom

  The Consortium of Bengali Associations

  Northern Ireland Council of Ethnic Minorities

  CAJ, Belfast

  African Caribbean Leadership

  Commission for Racial Equality (NI)

  Belfast Travellers Education and Development Group

  The Islamic Foundation

  Minority Rights Group

  Confederation of Indian Organisations

  Charter 88 Ltd.

  Society of Asian Lawyers

  Central Scotland Racial Equality Council

  Fife Racial Equality Council

  Grampian Racial Equality Council

  Lothian Racial Equality Council

  Tayside Community Relations Council

  West of Scotland Community Relations Council

  Commission for Racial Equality, Scotland Office

  SCVO Race Equality Development Unit

  Common na Gaidhlig

  Welsh Development Agency

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  Wales Tourist Board

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Land Authority for Wales

  National Museums and Galleries of Wales

  National Library of Wales

  1209

  Sports Council for Wales

  Welsh Language Board

  Bwrdd yr laith Gymraeg

  Arts Council of Wales

  Tai Cymru

  Countryside Council for Wales

  Qualification, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales

  Residuary Body for Wales

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales

  Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

  Members of the Race Relations Forum

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what definitions are used of(a) culture, (b) ethnic and (c) ethnicity in his Department's work to support its ratification of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities; [55446]

  (2) which groups are currently under consideration for acceptance by his Department as a National Minority in addition to those national minorities already recognised by his Department as existing within the United Kingdom under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities; [55449]

  (3) which national minorities his Department has identified within the United Kingdom for the purposes of its ratification of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. [55450]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  "National Minority" is not a legally defined term within the United Kingdom. For the purposes of the Convention, our report will be based on the definition of racial group as set out in the Race Relations Act 1976. This defines a racial group as"a group of persons defined by colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins".

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what timetable he has set for the consultation and report on progress made by the United Kingdom since the ratification of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. [55445]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are due to report on progress under the Convention by May 1999. To meet this deadline, we have invited interested parties to suggest issues which might be included in our report and will consult them early next year on a draft.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking to encourage speedier responses to claims by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; [55150]

  (2) what is the current average time that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board takes to deal with a claim. [55149]
  1210
  Mr. Michael
  There are no meaningful average waiting times applicable to criminal injuries compensation claims. Applications range from the very straightforward ones, in which a decision may be issued within weeks, through to exceptionally complex cases where it may take a number of years for the injury to be fairly assessed. It is sometimes impossible to assess fully the level of permanent injury for some considerable time, and this can contribute to delay. Interim payments are usually made in such cases to assist the victim return in the shorter term.

  The work of the board is confined to the clearance of cases outstanding under the 1990 common law damages scheme at 31 March 1996. There were then some 110,000 such cases. By 30 September 1998 the board had reduced this figure to 17,500, most awaiting an appeal or other hearing. The aim is to clear these cases by 31 March 2000.

  The tariff-based scheme, effective for all claims received on or after 1 April 1996, is operated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), with appeals being dealt with by the independent Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel (CICAP). The new scheme was designed to be simpler and faster. CICA' s target is to issue a first decision in 90 per cent. of claims within 12 months of receipt. In 1997–98, achievement was 86 per cent. CICAP' s target is to resolve appeals in 80 per cent. of cases within six months. In 1997–98, achievement was 82 per cent.

  Immigration Service
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change there was in the number of front-line immigration officers between January 1988 and January 1998. [55654]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 1 January 1988, the Immigration Service employed a total of 1,350 permanent immigration officers for its combined on-entry and enforcement operations. On 1 January 1998, the total figure was 1,976, of which 1,764 were in the Immigration Service Ports Directorate and 212 were in the Immigration Service Enforcement Directorate. In addition, the Assistant Immigration Officer grade was introduced in 1991. On 1 January 1998, there were 154 Assistant Immigration Officers, of whom 129 were in the Immigration Service Ports Directorate and 25 were in the Immigration Service Enforcement Directorate.

  Drug Smuggling
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the(a) direct and (b) indirect cost of illegal drug smuggling to the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [55655]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Estimates of the costs of problematic drug misuse were produced by Professor Michael Hough of South Bank University and included in the Home Office Drug Prevention Initiative report "Arrest Referral: Emerging Lessons from Research", published in April 1998.

  The total annual cost was put at between £3.2 billion and £3.7 billion, made up of £100 million health costs, £600 million unemployment and sickness benefit

  1211
  payments, £500 million criminal justice system costs and costs of between £2 billion—£2.5 billion to victims of drug-related crime.

  These estimates do not distinguish between costs arising from drugs smuggled illegally and drugs produced in this country, although other studies suggest that the overwhelming majority of the drug misused in this country are produced overseas.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Growth Promoters
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many infringements of the regulations concerning the growth promoter Olaquindox have been recorded in each year since 1987. [54663]

  Mr. Rooker
  Olaquindox is a growth promoter permitted for use in feed for piglets up to 4 months of age under the requirements of Council Directive 70/524/EEC as amended. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain enforces the relevant provisions of the Directive in Great Britain and routinely monitors the use of zootechnical additives in feedingstuffs. There are no records of infringements specific to the use of Olaquindox.

  Persistent Inquirers
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of his Department's agencies have procedures to identify persistent inquirers for information. [53949]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department's Executive Agencies are the responsibility of their Chief Executives. I have asked them to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 22 October 1998:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about procedures to identify persistent enquirers for information.
  The Pesticides Safety Directorate aims to respond helpfully to all enquirers for information and has no procedures in place to identify persistent enquirers.

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 22 October 1998:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), to your question concerning procedures to identify persistent enquiries for information.
  1212
  Requests for information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information are routinely monitored, but it has not been found necessary to introduce specific procedures to identify persistent enquiries.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 8 October 1998:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about which of his Department's agencies have procedures to identify persistent enquirers for information.
  Although the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) monitors all requests for information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it has not been found necessary to introduce specific procedures for persistent inquirers. The VMD follows the guidance on interpretation of the Code issued by the Office of Public Service.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 22 October 1998:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food enquiring whether agencies have procedures to identify persistent enquirers for information has been passed to me to respond on behalf of this Executive Agency.
  The MHS receives many requests for information from various sources and aims to respond helpfully to all such requests. The Agency does not have any formal procedures to identify persistent enquirers.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 22 October 1998:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on the procedures in place at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) to identify persistent enquirers for information.
  I can confirm that the VLA has a process in place for tracking all enquiries addressed to the Agency.

  Letter from Sarah Nason to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 22 October 1998:
  Mr. Nick Brown has asked me to reply, in respect of the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA), to your question about which of his Department's agencies have procedures to identify persistent enquirers for information.
  In accordance with FRCA's Charter and Statement of Service Standards correspondence is recorded and monitored locally. FRCA Directors report on a quarterly basis to the Agency's Management Board so that service improvements and opportunities for efficiencies can be identified. This process should ensure the identification of persistent enquirers.

  Letter from P. W. Greig-Smith to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 22 October 1998:
  As Agency Chief Executive, I am responding to your question to the Minister of Agriculture in relation to the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS).
  With regard to the operation of monitoring of persistent inquirers for information, CEFAS receives many requests from individuals and organisations seeking information. These are monitored as required by the Agency's obligations under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, and the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.
  There are no specific procedures by which people who make frequent requests are identified, but any such cases would be evident from inspection of the records when annual summaries are prepared.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to attend a meeting and undertake a speaking engagement at Glasgow University on Tuesday, 27th October, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Pensioners and Income Support
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they hope to publish the reports of the nine pilot schemes they have set up to identify and remove the reasons why million pensioners are not claiming the income support to which they are entitled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security, (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the Department of Social Security has been running nine pilot schemes since April this year to find the best way to provide more automatic help to the poorest pensioners. The pilots are only just being completed. We have commissioned an independent evaluation of the pilots which is currently being carried out. Results are expected early next year, and publication will then follow as soon as possible.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Does the Minister's reply mean that the publication of the Government's Green Paper on their comprehensive pensions policy is also to be delayed until the spring, making a fourth delay in the long saga of waiting for the Government to make up their mind? Or have the Government already made up their mind that a large part of pensions provision has to be means tested and that therefore it does not matter that this information is not available at the time of decision-making?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Green Paper on pensions will, as my honourable friend Mr. Denham has repeatedly said in another place, be published towards the end of this year. It is a Green Paper, and therefore a consultation document. There will be ample time for the results of the pilots to feed into the Government's future proposals for pension reform.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister think it significant that the take-up of housing benefit is so much higher than that for income
1556
support? Housing benefit is delivered by accountable, and usually more reachable, local authorities. Will the Minister tell the House what progress the Department of Social Security is making with its attitudes to claimants survey to discover the comparative experience of those claiming from local authorities and from the Benefits Agency?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, who is asking her first question. She is right. The record achieved by local authorities in the take-up of housing benefit is indeed higher than that for the take-up of income support by pensioners. That is precisely why we have engaged on the pilot schemes. It is clear that pensioners take up housing benefit because they are disproportionately living in council housing, or it comes to them automatically. We wish to see whether we can learn from that and achieve the same automatic delivery of benefit to pensioners who fail to claim but who are entitled to income support.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Does the Minister's reply to my question mean that the Government are determined to extend the area of means-tested benefits instead of building up a proper state insurance scheme under which people may receive their pensions as of right?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the choices are not merely a matter of either means-testing or a state insurance scheme. As the noble Baroness will know, the prosperity of future pensioners depends on a good second-tier pension, an occupational pension, appropriate personal pension or whatever; or, if those do not apply, SERPS or our proposals for stakeholder pensions. We currently have a problem in relation to poorer pensioners, mainly single women over the age of 75 who fail to claim income support and who have no occupational pension of their own. We believe that something like 1 million of them are failing to claim £15 a week. Therefore my noble friend and I are not in conflict on this matter. We all wish to see prosperity for future pensioners. However, there is a problem now; namely, that people who are not entitled to an occupational pension need income support and are failing to claim it. That is why we are going ahead with the pilot schemes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in my experience as a dentist I have found that older people were brought up under a system whereby they now feel it is beyond them and beneath their pride to ask for benefit. Does the Minister believe that that is a factor in relation to the age division? Or is it simply that the forms are too complicated?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness may well be right. There may be a generation issue. However, the qualitative survey that we undertook before entering into the pilot schemes suggested that the reasons pensioners seemed not to be taking up income support were a mixture of ignorance as to their

1557
entitlement, the complexity of the forms, as the noble Baroness rightly identified, the stigma associated with means-testing, but also because sometimes a pensioner, having sought a benefit in the past, may have been rebuffed and now wishes to have nothing to do with the system. In the pilot schemes we are attempting to find a method that may work to help overcome those perceived hurdles. If, for example, we scrutinise the records of those receiving attendance allowance, it is quite a good proxy to ensure that people also receive income support.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, will my noble friend consider a proposal whereby all those over 75 automatically receive a larger amount, a minimum pension guarantee, unless it is shown that their means enable them to receive a satisfactory income without the extra amount?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend may be referring to the proposals of Liberal Democrat spokesman, Mr. Steven Webb, regarding an extra pension for those aged over 75 and over 80. It is an interesting proposal. We are examining it. However, two issues would have to be addressed. One is the cost: £1 billion gross, half a billion net; the other is that a large proportion of the money would still go to people who financially do not need it because they are already relatively comfortably off.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, there has been mention of a one-stop shop as between local authorities and the Benefits Agency. In reply to my noble friend Lady Miller, the Minister said that more people apply for housing benefit than for income support. When we discuss forthcoming social security it is to be hoped that there will be a move towards a one-stop shop. Information given to local authorities ought to be shared with the Benefits Agency. That would be one way of tackling the problem. Secondly, has the Minister noted the Audit Commissioners' estimate in their report on housing benefit fraud of £180 million, not the £4 billion mentioned by the previous Minister in the Department of Social Security?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the last point it is hard to know the real figure in relation to fraud. Had it been detected we should have received the money. The noble Baroness is right, as was her noble friend Lady Miller. There is a much higher take-up for housing benefit—94 per cent.—compared to the take-up of income support, which runs more generally at about 80 per cent. The discrepancy is even wider for pensioners. That is why, in the recent Social Security Act, we extended proposals introduced by the previous administration on data matching (information sharing) for good reasons between local authorities and central government. We hope to go further down that road.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, on the point about providing additional pension to those over the age of 75, surely the problem would be tackled if that particular part of the pension were liable for tax. Those who were
1558
not liable for tax would receive the full benefit of the additional payment, and those who were better-off would not. Does the Minister agree that that would solve the problem?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is certainly true. As I said, we are looking at the matter. It is worth reminding ourselves how much pensioners' incomes have stretched over the past few years. As of 1996 the average income of the fifth of pensioners with the lowest incomes is only £100 a week. For the fifth of couples with the highest incomes the average is £600 a week. Inequality has widened within the population of pensioners over the past 20 years. That is why we are addressing the matter and are so concerned to target public resources to those in greatest need.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I refer to the first comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, relating to the delay in millions of pensioners claiming their allowances. On these Benches we share the concern that, by delaying claiming, those pensioners miss out on fuel payments and other benefits to which they are entitled. On the broader front, will the Minister accept that a minimum-pension guarantee would not increase the state pension? Surely, the result would be an increase to means-tested income support? Does she not accept that that may result in a disincentive to save, increasing dependency on the state?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not accept the assertion behind the second part of the noble Baroness's question. The Chancellor has announced that from April 1999 we shall spend £2.5 billion on pensioners in terms of the take-up of income support and increasing the top-up from retirement pension to income support by three times what would have been the normal uprating, so that the minimum guaranteed income for pensioners will be £75 for an individual and £116 for a couple. In addition, we shall repeat the winter fuel payments and restore free eye tests—which should never have been stopped—and concessionary fares. A substantial package will go to the poorest pensioners, as a result of which they will enjoy a much greater hike in their real income than they have had at any point since the previous Labour administration.

Vickers: Tank Factory Job Losses
3 p.m.
Lord Calverley Lord Calverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the laying off of 450 workers at the Vickers tank factory in Leeds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, job losses are always regrettable. It is very sad that Vickers has been unable to sustain its current workforce in Leeds, especially as it has had a long association with the city. I am therefore pleased that the Government Office for Yorkshire and Humber has announced that it is establishing a rapid response unit to bring together the city council, the Leeds training and

1559
enterprise council, the Employment Service and the company to ensure that every possible help with retraining and redeployment is available. I am sure that the skills of these employees will prove attractive to other employers. This help is in addition to the out-placement services which Vickers will offer to all staff who are made redundant.
Lord Calverley: My Lords I thank the Minister for his reply. But is he aware that the Strategic Defence Review of 11th July this year stated that,
"substantial work [is assured] … for the next three years"?
Just two months later these cuts were announced. Does he agree with the Governor of the Bank of England that this is an acceptable price to pay?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Strategic Defence Review provided a clear basis for the aerospace and defence industries to plan for the future. That does not mean that every single job at every single location is automatically protected.
As to the noble Lord's second question, I have to remind him that the Governor of the Bank of England is not a Minister of the Crown, unlike the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer who said that unemployment was a price worth paying. If the noble Lord looks at the Governor's remarks as reported in the Newcastle newspaper, The Journal, he will see that he said:
"My anxiety is to try to keep unemployment lower than it has been in earlier phases of slowdown and earlier phases of recession. I am very hopeful that any rise in unemployment that we will see will be nothing like the kinds of rises we have seen in the past".
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, we know in Leeds why there is a decline in the number of tanks needed by the Army. We understand and confirm the steps that have been taken by the local authority. In Leeds we do not have the incentives that are offered in other parts of the country to attract new industry into the area. Given what has happened at Vickers, formerly Barnbow and the ROF, which has provided work in Leeds for many decades, we should look again at possible incentives to bring work back to that part of Leeds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot deny what my noble friend said about incentives. The economy in Leeds is diverse and buoyant. Leeds is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe. We recognise that there are areas of severe deprivation in Leeds and for that reason the Government are investing over £60 million in the city through the single regeneration budget up to and including the year 2004–2005.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the proposed reduction in the number of workers at the Vickers factory will not affect the numbers and times of issue of Challenger 2 tanks to our armed forces?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Vickers, rather than the Government, is responsible for meeting
1560
its contractual obligations to government. I understand that it made its decisions as to its workforce in Leeds for commercial reasons. I have no reason to suppose that it is putting its contractual obligations at any risk.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, though the number of those who will lose their jobs in Leeds—namely, 450—is a lot fewer than the losses predicted at Rover, it is as big a blow to every man who loses his job in Leeds and to his family as it would be to anyone working in the car industry? Can the Minister assure us that the Government will treat this issue as seriously as that in relation to Rover?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Every time a job is lost in engineering, whether it is in cars or defence manufacturing, ancillary jobs of suppliers are also at risk. That is why I said in my first Answer that a rapid response unit was being set up to tackle problems of that kind. That does not gainsay the fact that my noble friend is right. Job losses are serious for the economy and a tragedy for those involved.
Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield: My Lords, I should first declare an interest as a non-executive director of Vickers. Does the Minister accept that the job losses at Leeds would have been far greater had not the company decided to use about half the existing site to establish a centre of excellence for the maintenance, re-equipment and support of the tanks now in service with the British Army?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I am not sure that a non-executive Director of Vickers should be asking questions about that matter in this House. These matters are for Vickers, not the Government.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, is it not the case that at present we have a substantial number of the heavy tanks in which Vickers has specialised? Is it not also the case that the need is for a lighter and different type of armoured fighting vehicle and that so far Vickers has proved unable to succeed in competition for contracts to produce such a vehicle on which it should now be advised to concentrate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think it is for the Government to advise Vickers as to what type of vehicle it should concentrate on. It must make commercial decisions. What the Government can do, and have done, is to try to set out as clearly as possible for a number of years ahead their defence strategy and, therefore, the procurement policies which follow from that.

Social Security Benefits
3.19 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, when a woman becomes entitled to widow's benefit, she automatically loses the invalid care allowance, even though her caring role for a disabled relative may continue.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is a basic principle of the social security system that only one benefit at a time can be paid to a person for income maintenance. Widow's benefit is designed as an income replacement benefit for women who lose their means of support through being widowed. Invalid care allowance provides a measure of financial support to those who give up the opportunity of full-time paid employment to care for a severely disabled person. To pay both benefits in full at the same time would duplicate provision for that need because they are both income replacement benefits. I understand that this has been the case ever since the social security system was established in 1948. It was applied to carer's benefit when my noble friend Lady Castle introduced ICA in 1975 from which so many carers have subsequently benefited.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her response, is she aware that the Question is based upon a case reported to me as a trustee of the Widows' Advisory Trust? The case involved a woman who had spent her life looking after a Down's Syndrome child. She had had the support, financially and otherwise, of a husband. He died and she received a widow's benefit which replaced the financial support that she had had from her husband, but at the same time she lost ICA. I believe that that was a rather harsh decision. Can these kinds of cases be looked at carefully in future? This view is supported by the Carers' Association, of which I am also a member.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to assure my noble friend that this matter will be drawn to the attention of both the National Carers Strategy Forum which is being chaired by my honourable friend Mr. Paul Boateng and our forthcoming review of widows' benefits. If there is an income or earnings replacement benefit, two benefits are not paid at the same time if they overlap for the same purpose. For example, if a widow was on incapacity benefit, which is an earnings replacement benefit for an individual who has become disabled, she would not get that plus widow's benefit but she could get housing benefit or disability living allowance to meet extra costs. That is the basic principle of the social security system. But I shall be very happy to look at the case to which my noble friend has referred to make sure that that family claims every benefit to which it is entitled. There is a full range of other benefits, from disability living allowance to carers' premiums and so on, to which such a family is entitled. It is worth ensuring that that family is claiming its entitlement.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister consider whether she has just committed the logical fallacy of false
1562
division? I heard what she said about income replacement benefits, but is not invalid care allowance entirely correctly classified as an income replacement benefit, or should it be classified as a benefit for meeting additional costs?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I look to my noble friend Lady Castle for support in this matter. It is an earnings replacement benefit for those who, by virtue of their caring responsibilities, which we all value, come out of the labour market and care instead. That is why at earnings of £50 a week, for example, the benefit stops. The assumption then is that someone is replacing care income with earnings income. It is an earnings replacement benefit and that is its intent. As a result, ever since 1975 when it was first established it is not allowed to overlap with any other earnings replacement benefit. It is not compensation or an extra cost benefit, which is DLA, but an earnings replacement benefit. That was its purpose and, as I understand it, it retains that purpose.
Lord Addington: My Lords, to follow up my noble friend's Question, does the Minister agree that two sets of costs are being incurred which these benefits are designed to meet but as they come to the same kind of payment one is disappearing? Is it not the case that the rules have been set and will be followed no matter how ridiculous they are?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this is the basic principle of the social security system. I gave the example of a widow who had previously been receiving incapacity benefit, which is an earnings replacement benefit. She would not receive IB and widow's benefit because both are earnings replacement benefits. She would get a benefit for a different reason—that is, extra cost, which is disability living allowance, housing benefit or council tax benefit which meet a different need. Clearly, it is open to any government not to have any overlapping benefits. I suspect that the overall social security Bill would go up from its current £100 billion approximately by perhaps 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 50 per cent. That is the principle on which we are currently operating. But I shall consider the particular case raised by my noble friend to ensure that all proper moneys are being paid.

Savings Account Criteria
3.25 p.m.
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to ensure that all savings and investment accounts offered by National Savings meet the benchmark standards for the individual savings account.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the CAT benchmark standard is a voluntary set of requirements designed specifically for the new individual savings account. Its purpose is to support savings through ISAs by encouraging minimum standards for charges, access and terms. There is no intention that the CAT standards

1563
should apply to other forms of savings, whether those savings are provided by National Savings or anyone else. There is a huge range of savings products catering for many different needs. Many national savings products are bond or certificate products which are mainly lump sum investments at fixed rates. It is wholly inappropriate to compare the CAT standards designed for cash ISAs against such products. I am pleased to be able to announce that National Savings plans to introduce a new savings account specifically for inclusion within an ISA which it fully expects will meet the CAT standards.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, in the light of the report that all existing 18 products of National Savings do not meet the Government's criteria that savings plans must be approved by the Treasury and the disquiet in the industry about these criteria, ironically, cannot the Government review the criteria rather than the individual savings plans?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are not 18 but 11 National Savings products. All but three of those are bond or certificate products that are strictly non-comparable with cash ISAs. Of the three that are account products offered by National Savings, one is designed only for charities. The second is the individual account which is designed for quick deposit and withdrawal and quite different from ISAs. The third is the investment account which is designed for a quite different purpose since half of the investors are children who are not able to benefit from ISAs. The comparisons are entirely inappropriate.
Lord Newby: My Lords, given the uncertainties that have surrounded the development of the CAT standard to date, can the Minister give any indication as to when the regulatory authorities may be in a position to decide whether individual ISAs meet the CAT standard?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it will be in good time before introduction.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, despite the Minister's robust defence of National Savings, do not the Government find it a little embarrassing that so many of the accounts fail to meet the benchmark standards? In particular, is it not embarrassing that the National Savings investment account fails on all three counts? Should not the Government do either as my noble friend suggests and look again at the benchmark standards or ask National Savings to come into line with those standards as an example to other providers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad that halfway through his Question the noble Lord began to recognise that the comparison between ISAs and the bond and certificate products of National Savings was entirely inappropriate and therefore concentrated on the investment account. The investment account is not required to meet CAT standards; nor was it ever intended to do so. That product is designed for a different purpose. At least half of the holders of
1564
investment accounts are in any event ineligible for ISAs. As for the CAT standards themselves, I do not believe that their status should be exaggerated. These are benchmark standards. There will be perfectly acceptable ISA products, or products incorporating ISAs, that are appropriate to individual savers all of whom have different needs and will not necessarily conform to the CAT standards.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree after a moment's reflection that his response to my noble friend Lord Newby was somewhat inadequate? Does the Minister agree that the likely date is a matter of public interest? Even if he cannot give a firm commitment, is he able to indicate whether it will be this year, next year or never?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, ISAs are to be introduced by April 1999. I have given the commitment that matters: that the regulatory standards will be available in good time. Anything beyond that is pure speculation and technical, and does not need to concern the noble Lord in the way that he seems to be concerned.

Business of the House: State Opening
3.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure the House will be delighted to hear that it is expected that the new Session of Parliament will be opened by Her Majesty the Queen in person on Tuesday 24th November. I am not yet in a position to announce the intended date on which the House should meet to prorogue. However, I can say that, subject to the progress of business, it is expected that this will be in the course of the week beginning Monday 16th November. I have to tell noble Lords that the prorogation is likely to be in the latter part of that week.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be extremely grateful to the Government Chief Whip for making the announcement as soon as he was able with his usual courtesy to the House.
Perhaps the noble Lord will take this opportunity to acknowledge that during the course of the past Session the House has sat for a longer period in one Session than any other period—I think that I am right in saying—in the records of your Lordships' House. I hope he will recognise that during the course of that Session this House has processed an extraordinary amount of important and epoch-making—but we hope not too damaging to the future of this country—business. We hope that he will also recognise that during the course of performing that task this House has performed also its historic task of examining large chunks of business which had not received even the most cursory examination in another place. That perhaps underlines the importance of a second Chamber.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I, too, am grateful for the indication of when the Queen's Speech will take place.

1565
Will the noble Lord the Chief Whip take this opportunity to comment on a matter which arose at Question Time? The noble Lord will remember that in reply to a supplementary question in which the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore, declared that he was a non-executive director of Vickers, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that he was doubtful whether it was proper for such a question to be put. I understood that it was not required of noble Lords to state an interest at the time of asking questions. However, if, despite that non-requirement, a noble Lord chooses to do so, is it appropriate for the Government Front Bench then to say that it is an improper question? It is an important issue on which I think the whole House will want an answer.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the two noble Lords. Perhaps I may answer the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. It is true that this has been a long Session. As Chief Whip, I am extremely grateful for the patience that has been shown in all parts of the House in a Session which has been extremely heavy. An interesting point is that during this Session we shall have passed in excess of 50 Bills. That is almost exactly the same number as was passed in the 1979–80 Session, which is the equivalent 18-month Session after a period in opposition. To be fair, we have included in those 50 Bills three substantial Bills on devolution.
It has been a long Session. Your Lordships will have seen the statistic which has been quoted: that this has been the longest Session sitting of the House since the Long Parliament. I have done a little research on that. I can confirm that the number of Conservative Peers considerably exceeded the number of Labour Peers in that Parliament as well.
I think that I can promise noble Lords that the Session we shall start on 24th November will be no less exciting and demanding than the one we have had this year.
On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, the Companion is entirely clear. If there is an interest to be declared it should be done at an appropriate time. It is not always necessary to do so at Question Time. Perhaps the noble Lord who intervened felt that as the Question was directly about Vickers he should mention the matter. But the Companion is entirely clear on the attitude that your Lordships should take on that matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on that last point, does the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip recollect that there have been fairly frequent occasions over the years when trade union leaders who happen to be noble Lords have intervened on matters affecting their unions in circumstances not dissimilar to those which arose at Question Time today? If it is proper for a trade union leader to do so, surely it is equally proper for a director of the company concerned, having declared his interest, to do so.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps the best thing I can do is to read what the Companion says. It states:
"Lords who have a direct financial interest in a subject on which they speak should declare it, making clear that it is a financial interest. They should also declare any non-financial interest of which their audience should be aware in order to form a balanced judgment of their arguments".
It also states:
"On certain occasions such as Starred Questions and the various stages of a Bill following Second Reading, it may be for the convenience of the House that Lords should not take up time by repeating declarations of interest but Lords should make a declaration whenever they are in doubt".
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for prolonging the matter, but I believe that the House should be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for raising the matter immediately. The House should also be extremely grateful to the Government Chief Whip for reading out the relevant part of the Companion, which seems to me to be perfectly clear, as he intimated.
If the Government Chief Whip agrees with me that the Companion supports the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore, acted entirely within the spirit and letter of the instructions of the Companion, I hope that he will therefore acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore, acted entirely properly during the course of Question Time today.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords attempt to act entirely properly during Question Time. However, the Companion also says that noble Lords should be "especially cautious" when they have a direct financial interest. They should be extremely careful in the way in which they handle it.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue the matter further. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is very courteous in his treatment of the House, but those of us who were present heard plainly a reprimand from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which was inappropriate. I ask the Government Chief Whip, without making a further meal of it, to say that in this case an error was made. That could be an end of the matter.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not sure that it was an error. I am not of the intention of reprimanding any of my colleagues. I am sure that my noble friend was aware of what the Companion said and I think he treated the matter in the way that he thought was correct.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am very sorry, because the Government Chief Whip is always extremely courteous and helpful to the House, and entirely unpartisan in the way that he treats us. I know that he is being unpartisan in this matter. However, there has clearly been an imputation about the propriety of the conduct of a Member of your Lordships' House—as it happens, a particularly well-respected and distinguished Member of your Lordships' House. I believe it would be appropriate—I am absolutely sure that no imputation

1567
was meant by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the noble Lord acted beyond the realms of propriety—that the matter should be made absolutely clear now.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in these circumstances it is always as well to check Hansard to see what was said. I am sure my noble friend had no intention of imputing any base motives to any noble Lord. He saw the situation. The Companion is entirely clear. He acted in the way he thought was right. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore, also thought that he was correct. I suggest we all read Hansard tomorrow and reflect on it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, is it not a fact that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, refused to answer the question. Might he now answer the question posed by the noble Lord?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is new to this House, but Question Time ended after 30 minutes.

Scotland Bill
3.38 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Scottish Parliament]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, which leaves out subsection (4) on the ground that it is obviously unnecessary. The subsection provides that:
"The validity of any proceedings of the Parliament is not affected by a vacancy in its membership".
Nobody in his senses supposes that parliamentary proceedings become invalid during a by-election. A similar point arises with Amendment No. 69 to Clause 16, which is concerned with disqualification rather than vacancy.
I must at the outset apologise for the state of my voice. I hope that it will serve for the argument. If not, I am encouraged by the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, because my amendment repeats one tabled by him in Committee. I spoke in support of it and was expecting an answer to the points that I made. It was only after two-and-a-half months of silence and an inability to contact the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that I tabled Amendment No. 1.
Subsection (4) is a perfectly unnecessary provision because no sane person supposes that a vacancy in membership, resulting from a by-election, say, invalidates the proceedings. In fact, in this case there is an additional point, to which I shall turn in a moment. The amendment raises the following question. Are we going to continue to clutter up the statute book in order to anticipate any argument, however futile?
That causes me to consider what has happened to the statute book in recent decades. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is in his place, will not be surprised to hear me refer to his Committee on the Preparation of Legislation. It reported in 1975 and criticised the prolixity of the statute book, which was then three volumes of public and general Acts. Within a few years, notwithstanding what the Renton Committee had stated, it had increased to five volumes. The format was then enlarged, to the extreme inconvenience of those who had had bookcases made for the smaller volumes. However, no doubt that did not matter to the various government departments which could have larger bookcases made. In spite of the fact that that larger format enabled the volumes to be reduced to three, they have subsequently again increased to five and I should be very surprised if this year there were not more. Why is there this prolixity, only one aspect of which is highlighted by the amendment?
Your Lordships may remember a letter written by George Bernard Shaw in which he apologised for its length on the ground that he had no time to write a shorter one. That is the same in parliamentary drafting. It takes time to economise in drafting. The parliamentary draftsmen, particularly this year, have been under exceptional pressure, and it is very much easier to repeat formulas which have been used in the past—however inappropriately in the past and still more inappropriately in the present—than to try to pare down.
Similarly, officials wish to cover every single point. That matter was referred to specifically by the Renton Committee, quoting a memorandum from two eminent Scottish lawyers, my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie and the late Lord Wheatley who at the time were respectively Lord President and Lord Justice Clerk. No notice has been taken of that, so we ask why parliamentary counsel have not been told to economise. Why has not the pressure been taken off them to enable them to do so? The answer is that no one is effectively responsible to parliamentary counsel as a whole. In theory, they are directly responsible to the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister has things to do other than worry about the details of drafting.
A few years ago, Sir Robert Andrew, an eminent former civil servant, was appointed to consider the government legal services and he made a great number of recommendations. One was that parliamentary counsel should be responsible to the Law Officers. Of all his recommendations, that was the only one that was not accepted. Anyone who has knowledge of Whitehall can imagine the manoeuvres and pressures which led to that exception.
As it is, all that we have is that the draftsman of a particular Bill is responsible to the Minister in charge of it. When the Minister is a layman, naturally, he will immediately accede to the argument of counsel that such and such has been done previously and that such and such is desirable, even if not strictly necessary, in order to obviate an argument. I believe that to be the case here.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who I apprehend will reply, will perhaps confirm whether my recollection is correct. It fits in with the letter I received

1569
a few days ago and which, unfortunately, crossed one of mine. We both know where the other stands. I repeat that, effectively, a lay Minister is in the hands of counsel.
Since I entered the other place in 1951 I have known only one Minister who insisted on having his way in paring down drafting. As he generally operated in the small hours of the night that was not very popular with parliamentary counsel. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will know to whom I refer. He is no longer alive—that is to say, Lord Duncan-Sandys is no longer alive—but happily the noble Lord is still alive. It is only when there is a lawyer that parliamentary counsel can be effectively challenged and perhaps still more when a Law Officer, as in the present case, is in charge of the Bill. An exceptional burden of responsibility lies on a Law Officer because he is not purely a partisan spokesman of the Government. He owes a duty to the House in which he sits to put the law impartially and accurately. Those of us who heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate speak of his duty in relation to the Lockerbie prosecution will have no doubt that he stands firmly in the best tradition in that respect.
The argument in favour of the subsection is quite absurd because no sensible person has ever supposed that a parliamentary by-election—and that is what we are concerned with here—invalidates the proceedings of Parliament. But there is an exceptional case in the present Bill. Clause 8(4) states:
"The election shall not be held if the latest date for holding the poll would fall within the period of three months ending with the day on which the poll at the next ordinary general election would be held'",
and is followed by some immaterial words. In other words, if the argument in favour of retaining the subsection in Clause 1 is right, it means that there are three months during which Parliament is totally incapable of activity providing that there is a vacancy or disqualification during that period. I owe that point to my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman. I hope that he will speak on this amendment. It is a clinching argument.
I said that nobody in his senses could argue that a by-election invalidates the proceedings of Parliament. I go further. In the light of Clause 8(4), anybody who so argues would have to be hurried off rapidly to a mental hospital.
I now deal with the arguments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate which I received a day or so ago. They are in answer to questions that I asked on 16th and 30th July. When I heard nothing in all that time I suspected that I could hear distantly the sound of entrenching tools in Whitehall and so it appeared when I received his letter. The first thing he states is that there are precedents. So there are. This provision occurs in other statutes and all except one appear in schedules where they were not noticed. In any case all the statutes, including the latest, dealt with corporations aggregate. But the Scottish parliament is not a corporation aggregate. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord
1570
Advocate pointed out in his letter clearing up the confusion, the Scottish parliament is an unincorporated association. So no precedent applies.
The second argument is that the parliament is defined as having a particular number of members. I suppose the argument might be put forward that the absence of one of those members invalidates the proceedings. But the House of Commons also has a specified number of Members. That cannot be exceeded because it is governed by the various electoral Acts. As I say, nobody has been sufficiently off his head to argue that the proceedings of the House of Commons are invalid during a by-election.
Filled with enthusiasm, the noble and learned Lord went on to say that that argument could not be put forward in relation to the House of Commons because it would be precluded by the Bill of Rights. But that will not do. All that that Bill says is that proceedings in Parliament may not be questioned out of Parliament. So I ask the noble and learned Lord specifically whether anybody in Parliament has ever been so foolish as to argue that a by-election brings the validity of its proceedings to an end. I hope that I have dealt with all his points. I believe that I have. If I have not, no doubt he will develop them. I press this amendment. Unless we make a stand at last on a perfectly plain issue, we will continue at great expense and inconvenience in allowing the statute book to grow and grow. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, these amendments are tempting because their proposer, the noble and learned Lord, is usually correct in seeking to delete unnecessary words. On the face of it the two subsections seem to be unnecessary. I recall my initial surprise at finding them in the Bill at all. They seem to clarify a matter which I did not think was in doubt but now, recognising that the Scottish parliament will be a creature of statute and possibly subject to judicial review in some form, I feel that their inclusion in the Bill will be helpful. Without these words there could be doubt and opportunities for mischief-making by people who oppose the existence of the Scottish parliament. Their deletion would allow such opportunities for a judicial process rather than securing the successful launch of the Scottish parliament. Indeed, their deletion today could send an unhelpful signal to mischief-makers. Therefore, I believe that these tempting amendments should not be supported.
4 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. How can it seriously be contended that the legislative assembly of a country can be brought temporarily to a standstill because a member has died or chosen to resign? It is bad policy to build unnecessary clauses into a Bill for the avoidance of untenable doubts. If we do not get rid of this dead wood parliamentary drafting will become ossified. If we carry this matter further, I hope that your Lordships will support the crusade to get rid of this totally unnecessary subsection.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I wish to make it clear that,

1571
although my name is not on the amendment, that does not in any way signify a lack of support for the idea. I am told that my name is on the amendment. That shows that I support it subconsciously as well as consciously.
The idea in the amendment was raised, first, in the Government of Wales Bill, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale sought—without any success—to persuade the Minister's Welsh colleagues of the validity of his argument. As the noble and learned Lord rightly said, the physical size of public general statutes increases year-by-year. They creep along my bookcase in a horizontal direction just as my neighbour's Leylandii hedge creeps upwards year-by-year. It is a major problem. When one looks at the statute and tries to identify the relevant subsections, there are occasions when the verbiage gets in the way.
When this matter was last debated, I drew attention to the provisions of Clause 8(4) and argument upon which the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Brightman, have also commented. It is quite inconceivable that this argument could be advanced. I have the benefit of a copy of the letter which the noble and learned Lord the Lord-Advocate sent to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I remain unpersuaded that this is a serious question. It is a small matter on which to take a stand, but there is no doubt that this is a suitable opportunity to take a stand. I wish the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to be aware that if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, presses the matter to a Division, we on these Benches will support him.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, having heard the very able speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I was tempted to concede the amendment. However, I should advise your Lordships that, in the light of the debate in Committee, we have looked very closely and carefully at Clause 1(4), and, as my letter to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, outlined, we remain of the view that it would be better to retain this subsection.
Indeed, the concerns frequently expressed at various points during the Committee stage, from all sides of the Committee, that proceedings of the parliament might be too vulnerable to legal challenge, reinforces our view that Clause 1(4) and Clause 16(5) offer wise protections and should stand.
Before going further, I should confirm that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has properly understood, it is our position that the Scottish parliament will be an unincorporated association created by statute. I should like to correct something that I said in the earlier debate. It was my understanding that the Westminster Parliament was a corporation sole. I am afraid that that understanding was incorrect, as I indicated in my letter, and I believe that the Westminster Parliament is not a body corporate in any form. As I mentioned in my letter to the noble and learned Lord, I regret if any of my comments in Committee were misleading in any material way.
1572
The issue raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, in these amendments is undoubtedly important. I share the view that the statute should not be cluttered up with unnecessary provisions. These amendments raise the issue of the necessity of the provisions in question. They are essentially simple provisions which are concerned with the balance of risk. However small we may perceive the risk to be of an argument along the lines being advanced, if the judgment is wrong the consequences would be very serious for the operation of the parliament. I am sure that the sensible path is to retain this provision. The essential point is that if we omit these provisions now we will increase—as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said—the scope for mischief and the scope for such arguments.
As I suggested in my letter to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, we think that the relevant question is: what constitutes the body of persons which is capable of taking a vote on a matter within the parliament? The parliament will be an unincorporated association of persons which is to be defined in statute as having a specified number of members. If the association is defined by a particular membership and the membership is not complete, that raises the question of whether or not there is then a validly constituted association in existence.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord address that argument in relation to the House of Commons, which is also a specified number?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I was intending to do that. With the leave of the House, I shall deal with that in due course.
If the association is not defined in this way, there is no such association capable of taking a vote on any matter and questions of majorities or minorities become irrelevant. For that reason I am not persuaded that it is necessarily the case that the provisions of Clause 1(4) do no more than confer a protection on the parliament which would be recognised at common law.
Turning to the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, raised a few minutes ago—the comparison with Westminster and the House of Commons—I do not consider that comparisons with Westminster in this connection are apt. Westminster, the House of Commons, is not a creature of statute, whereas, what we are talking about here—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his patience. Would the noble and learned Lord care to consider then various other parliaments in former dependencies which have been set up by statute?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the question of other parliaments in other dependencies may not be a fair comparison. The question here is that this Parliament is currently establishing through this Bill—which we hope eventually will become an Act—a creature of statute: namely, the Scottish parliament which will derive its powers from the Bill we are enacting. In other words,

1573
the Scottish parliament will be a statutory body. If one looks at other such statutory bodies which this Parliament at Westminster has created, one finds similar provisions.
My letter to the noble and learned Lord gave some examples in recent years of different statutory bodies. In addition, Section 1 of the Government of Wales Act contains a similar provision. There was a similar provision in Section 18(6) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. A reasonable comparison might well be local government because local authorities are statutory bodies which are carrying out functions, albeit at a lower level than the Scottish parliament will. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 7 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 has a similar provision. That provision was not repealed when local government re-organisation recently took place. I have quoted a sample of statutory bodies from recent times but I am advised that they are dotted through history and that similar provisions exist.
Against that background, if this provision were omitted from the Scotland Bill, it could be argued that Parliament intended a different situation to prevail regarding the Scottish parliament. I am sure your Lordships would accept that that would lead to an unsatisfactory situation. I take the point that the effect of Clause 8(4) would be that the parliament was frustrated during this three-month period pending an election. Although that would appear to result in an absurd and totally unacceptable situation, nevertheless, in view of the other examples where statutory bodies have had a specific provision inserted into their legislation enabling them to continue, albeit that there is a vacancy, on balance—I hope I have explained to your Lordships that this is a question of balance—we consider that this provision ought to remain in the Bill. In those circumstances, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for replying to the debate. He gave every impression of being convinced himself of what he was saying. I do not know how many other noble Lords were convinced. He again relied on precedent—local government Acts. As I pointed out, they were all made corporations aggregate, as was the Welsh Assembly. They provide no reason at all for a parliament such as this, an unincorporated body, to be interfered with in this way. The argument would not stand for a moment. I am fortified by the weighty opinions of my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. It really will not do to go on saying that there is a precedent, because every time we yield to that we make it more difficult to be sensible the next time and more difficult to eradicate something that is completely unnecessary.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the precedent of paragraph 9 of Schedule 7 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act. One wonders how much parliamentary attention was directed to paragraph 9 of the seventh schedule to the Local Government
1574
(Scotland) Act. Of course it ought to have been, but I am prepared to bet that it passed through pretty late at night without anyone paying attention to it. Moreover, all the other provisions referred to were in schedules.
I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, does not support the amendment. I confess that that surprised me greatly because a similar amendment was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, when the matter was raised in Committee. I hope that the hyphen between "Lib" and "Dem" is not becoming too pronounced. On the other hand, your Lordships have heard from great lawyers that this provision is unnecessary.
Normally, it is quite unsuitable to divide on a drafting point because so many of those who will vote will not have heard the arguments. But unless we do at last make a stand, we shall go on having the statute book inflated and inflated. The Government are in favour of bearing down on inflation everywhere except when it comes to the verbosity of the statute book. So I will, with respect, ask your Lordships to show the flag and to show where we stand on this matter.
4.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Gainford, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Gormanston, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Greenway, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hambro, L.

Attlee, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Headfort, M.

Brightman, L.

Holderness, L.

Burnham, L.

Hylton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kenyon, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Kingsland, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Kintore, E. [Teller.]

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Knollys, V.

Courtown, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Craigavon, V.

Long, V.

Cranborne, V.

McConnell, L.

Cross, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Davidson, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

De Freyne, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Denham, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montrose, D.

Downshire, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dudley, E.

Moyne, L.

Dundee, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Naseby, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elton, L.

Patten, L.

Erne, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Erroll, E.

Peel, E.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

1575

Renton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Romney, E.

Swinfen, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Teviot, L.

Rowallan, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Thurlow, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Sempill, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Shannon, E.

Warnock, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Weatherill, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wharton, B.

Stair, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Strafford, E.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hayman, B.

Alli, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Amos, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hughes, L.

Avebury, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bath, M.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

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

Berkeley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Borrie, L.

Levy, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Calverley, L.

Ludford, B.

Carlisle, E.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Christopher, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McNair, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNally, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Maddock, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Crawley, B.

Merrivale, L.

David, B.

Methuen, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mishcon, L.

Dholakia, L.

Molloy, L.

Diamond, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ezra, L.

Newby, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Falkland, V.

Paul, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Fitt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rea, L.

Goudie, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Grenfell, L.

Russell, E.

Hacking, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sawyer, L.

Hardie, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Serota, B.

1576

Sewel, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Shepherd, L.

Thornton, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Thurso, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Simon, V.

Uddin, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Whitty, L.

Stallard, L.

Wigoder, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

SECOND CHAMBER OF THE PARLIAMENT
(" . The legislative competence of the Parliament shall include power to set up a Second Chamber for the Parliament, whose composition and powers shall be determined by, and may be modified by, an Act of the Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we discussed an amendment of mine which would have introduced a second chamber to the Scottish parliament. A number of your Lordships supported that idea in principle but I think it would be true to say that there was a general feeling that it should not be decided by us here but that it should be decided, if necessary, by the Scottish parliament in the future.
Therefore, I have come forward with this amendment which makes clear on the face of the Bill—and we have just listened to a discussion about that—that the Scottish parliament will have the legislative competence to set up a second chamber whose composition and powers shall be determined and perhaps modified by an Act of that parliament. In other words, we are ensuring that the Scottish parliament has the power, if it wishes, to set up a second chamber at some time in the future.
I do not want to go on for too long about the arguments for a second chamber. The Marshalled List today provides all the argument that your Lordships will need in favour of a second chamber. In your Lordships' House, thanks to the Committee stage, the Government have tabled a considerable number of important amendments for this Report stage. Indeed, we are grateful to the Government for some of them. They have listened at least a little—I shall not say that they have listened all the time—and have taken on board some of the points made by your Lordships in Committee.
Of course, in Committee, the Government tabled some amendments arising both from the other place and from the opportunity that they have had to give second thoughts to some parts of the Bill. Therefore, the importance of a second chamber is clear. Even without the improvements that I trust your Lordships will make both on Report and at Third Reading, we have already made some progress in improving the Bill and making it better.
The Government do not always listen. The last debate showed clearly that Ministers do not even recognise when their own arguments have been entirely blown out of the water. But I suppose that your Lordships cannot win just by argument all the time. Occasionally the battalions of the government supporters and their camp followers come to their aid on a bad argument.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, did the previous government listen more or less than the current Government?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, not only did I listen but I was occasionally forced by your Lordships to listen to debates on a number of major issues which changed government policy. One piece of government policy which was changed remained to be enacted at the election and we still have not even seen the Bill which should have come before us by this time from the now Government who were very keen on the idea when they were in Opposition.
When we discussed the question of a second chamber for the Scottish parliament, a number of your Lordships from the governing party indicated some sympathy for the idea—the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who I see in his place, and the noble Lords, Lord Howie of Troon, Lord Hughes and Lord Ewing of Kirkford. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, went quite a long way in his support of the idea. Talking about my amendment, he said:
"The noble Lord has done Scotland in particular, and the United Kingdom in general, a service by initiating this debate. It is a debate that we can take forward in a constructive fashion. That is why it is important that we do not take such decisions today; indeed, we must not lock ourselves in and compartmentalise ourselves. We must continue the discussion that has been rightly started by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as month follows month, and possibly in two or three years' time we will return to the issue".—[Official Report, 8/7/98; col. 1250.]
I do not believe that we should necessarily return to the issue in two or three years. By "we" I mean both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We should make it clear on the face of the Bill that if a Scottish parliament decides that a second chamber is a good idea, it should be able to introduce one without coming to Westminster to ask for an amendment to the Scotland Bill, or indeed another Bill dealing specifically with that situation.
As your Lordships are aware, legislation in this Parliament goes through four stages in both Houses. In fact, in this House it is slightly more. In the House of Commons Third Reading is formal; speeches are made which are usually of a highly political nature but not much else happens. In this House amendments can be considered at Third Reading. Indeed, this week on the Third Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill your Lordships improved the Bill considerably over that proposed by the Government. One hopes that the Government will take that on board.
There are four stages of a Bill in the House of Commons. There is Second Reading; Committee stage, which is usually upstairs consisting of a Committee of
1578
about 20 people; then a Report stage on the Floor of the House, and an automatic Third Reading with a short debate. In addition to the Second Reading, your Lordships have a Committee stage, a Report stage and then a Third Reading.
Therefore, in this bicameral system, legislation is considered by two different bodies and two different collections of pairs of eyes, if I can put it that way. That improves legislation and every government of all parties have found it useful to have two bites at every cherry. Even the Bills that start in your Lordships' Chamber have the advantage of going to the Commons, where they can be amended. I recall a major piece of legislation which I started in your Lordships' House—the Pensions Act, as it now is. We amended it and listened to arguments, and it was further amended in the House of Commons in response to argument both in the House of Commons and here, and also perhaps discussions the Government had with outside bodies who were interested in pension matters.
I believe that hardly a Bill passes through the second Chamber—if it starts here, the House of Commons; if it starts in the Commons, here—without any change at all and hardly a Bill passes through Parliament without the Government taking advantage of the two stages to propose amendments to their own Bill; to accept arguments either in whole or in part.
I accept—it was made perfectly clear to me in the debate on 8th July—that most people considered it to be too late in the day to start thinking about a second chamber for a Scottish parliament or, as my proposal then was, to set up a commission to consider a second chamber for a Scottish parliament. In the light of that interesting debate I tabled an amendment which does no more than give the Scottish parliament, if it so wishes, the power to set up a second chamber and to decide on its composition and powers.
Once the Scottish parliament is up and running, it may well feel that it needs some form of second chamber; that is, a chamber that perhaps takes account of different parts of Scotland, or perhaps is drawn from local authorities or even, as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, thought, from the elected Members of the House of Commons from Scotland or the elected Members of the European Parliament from Scotland. That would mean a second chamber interlinked with the House of Commons, the Parliament of the United Kingdom and with the European Parliament, which is of increasing importance.
I am not tied to that idea, but I see its merits. One of the problems we have in this country is that we tend to run our different layers of government totally separately. We do not often countenance people being members of both. That tends to happen after elections, but people quickly resign from whichever body they believe to be the least significant. Nobody ever resigns from the House of Commons to take up their seat in the European Parliament or a seat in local government; but they do resign from local government and from the European Parliament, either immediately or at the next election, in order to take up their seat in the House of Commons.

1579
That is often unfortunate. There are plenty of Members of this place and of the other place to be able to afford a little overlap with those other bodies. However, I can see that the same arguments will prevail in the Scottish parliament against people having dual membership for a long time, though I hope that will happen. It may well be that the Scottish parliament will want to consider the kind of dual membership outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford.
Whatever the parliament wishes to do, it should be able to do it. It should be clearly within its powers to decide to set up a second chamber, and that is what my amendment seeks. It will not in any way, as my last amendment did—I can assure your Lordships quite accidentally—delay the setting up of the parliament. It will not impose anything on the parliament from here. It will simply give it power in the future if it wishes. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, conceded that the proposals he made in the Committee stage of this Bill for a second chamber for the Scottish parliament came a bit late in the day—indeed, too late to be practical in their implementation without holding up the establishment of the Scottish parliament. I can only say that it was significantly and curiously late in the day. It is remarkable that the Official Opposition only discovered the merits of a second chamber for the Scottish parliament after this legislation left the other place and arrived here.
I know it will not surprise the noble Lord or disappoint him, but on these Benches we remain persuaded of the view of his colleague in another place—Michael Ancram—who was and may still be the constitutional shadow Minister for the Official Opposition. He said in plain terms that in his view there is no case for a second chamber in the Scottish context.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I am not sure that that argument is entirely helpful, especially as in the last debate his party took a contrary view to the view it took in this Chamber at the Committee stage in relation to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. People in glasshouses should not throw stones.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I do not wish to return to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. That was a different size of issue than the one now being raised by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord changes his ground, conceding that it was curiously late in the day to make this proposal in the Committee stage, and he now wants the proposal to be within the competence of the Scottish parliament. Those who have been most deeply concerned over such a long time with the establishment of a Scottish parliament have already considered this issue seriously. The Scottish Constitutional Convention went into this in extreme detail and came to a measured judgment. It decided that a second chamber was not appropriate for
1580
a Scottish parliament and that there were other methods of dealing with the need for adequate scrutiny of legislation. It proposed from the beginning that there should be better pre-and post-legislative scrutiny and more consultation than exists in the Westminster system.
I understand that the steering group which has been looking at the working practices of the Scottish parliament agreed to recommend the establishment of a civic assembly. That would bring public bodies from across Scotland together to discuss issues of relevance with the Scottish parliament. It would also have a role in the pre-legislative stages of Bills.
The considered view, arising out of the long period when the Scottish Constitutional Convention struggled for what the present Government are now bringing into being, rests on a careful judgment of the matter. The Scottish parliament will be different from the Westminster Parliament in a number of ways. It will be different in that Bills can be carried over from one Session to another in its four-year term. There will therefore be more time for the scrutiny of legislation without the need to rush in order to avoid Bills falling.
For all those reasons, we on these Benches stick to the position that we have had throughout on this matter. We are not convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, now seeks to include in the procedures of the Scottish parliament.
Perhaps I may cite an additional consideration which might be worthy of consideration by those on the Conservative Benches. I am an enthusiastic devolutionist. I am an equally passionate anti-separatist. I repeat that I am a devolutionist and that I am not a separatist. I am proud of my Scottish nationalism, but I do not believe in separatist nationalism. If one goes too far along the road of urging that the Scottish parliament should be similar to that which we have here in Westminster, I believe that that will feed separatism rather than the proper, constructive devolutionist position, which is the very basis upon which the Scottish parliament will represent a tremendous improvement in the way in which we run our constitutional affairs and look after the best interests of the people of Scotland.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to point out that the Constitution Unit of University College, London considered unicameral legislatures and came to the interesting conclusion that where countries had moved to having a parliament with only one House,
"The parliaments which abolished their upper Houses and did not at the same time carry through other reforms to introduce checks and balances on the majority in the legislature … notably, New Zealand, and Queensland, have all in recent years had to address this omission".
On the other hand,
"Parliaments such as Denmark and Sweden, which switched to unicameralism and introduced reforms contemporaneously have not faced such problems".
The Minister will inevitably oppose the amendment, but an important principle has been raised. I refer to the fact that there should be the necessary checks and balances. One check and balance which has worked well

1581
in the past is having Special Standing Committees after the Second Reading of a Bill but before the Bill goes into Standing Committee. As it happens, I was the Minister who had to introduce legislation to deal with raves. We thought that we had got it absolutely right, as did the civil servants. However, Opposition MPs said that there was a better way to tackle the problem. That way emerged during a Special Standing Committee. It involved a lot more work for the civil servants, but the end result was much more acceptable and was, I believe, an improvement.
Something similar happened with the Children Act which applied to Scotland, which followed a similar Act for England. A Special Standing Committee considered that Bill. Ultimately, all the detailed complaints and requests of countless different organisations involved in the area were met acceptably. I believe that the Scottish parliament will necessarily have to put in place such a check or balance if it wants to act in a wholly satisfactory manner.
There are other checks and balances, such as ombudsmen acting effectively in a whole range of ways. Auditors can also keep a close eye on, and establish a wide-ranging review of, the economy and of the effectiveness of government programmes. It may also be possible to publish Bills in draft. I hope that the Minister will consider that possibility.
Perhaps I may end with a particular request. The steering committee which is considering the various procedures and regulations by which the parliament should operate has, I understand, been putting information on the internet. I became aware of that when information relating to Pepper v. Hart, which we shall debate later, was put before me. When the steering committee puts information on the internet, I suggest that similar information is placed in the Library of this House and in that of the House of Commons. I believe that both Peers and MPs would very much like to know the information, which is of relevance to the setting up of the Scottish parliament, which is being imparted via the internet.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, looking at the government amendments, I agree with my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish that the Government have been listening. They have done some excellent things. I hope, however, that they will be able to go further. It may well be that they should seriously consider this amendment. Surely of all the issues that have been raised in this House this is probably the one on which the Government would be wise to listen to the voice of noble Lords and, if I may say so, particularly of those noble Lords from their own Benches who in Committee spoke on this matter from their long experience.
Until the Bill reached this House, very few people with experience of second Chamber work had been involved. The noble Lords, Lord Ewing of Kirkford and Lord Steel of Aikwood—alas, neither is in his place today—were not Members of this House during the time
1582
of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, of which they were such distinguished chairmen. They were Members of the House of Commons. Members of the House of Commons probably contributed greatly to the work of the convention. I do not know whether the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie or Lord Thomson of Monifieth, were members. However, I doubt whether many members of the Scottish Constitutional Convention were Members of this House.
As I have said, Members of the House of Commons contributed, and they, like civil servants, often—naturally—regard the second Chamber as a nuisance rather than an advantage. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Scottish Constitutional Convention decried the notion of a second Chamber for the Scots parliament largely on the grounds of cost and democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, told us that in Committee. The noble Lord's experience in this House since then has not caused him to change his mind, but the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, explained to us in Committee that he has changed his mind, and why, and he suggested a way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, did the same. He described, from long experience, how governments frequently have second thoughts as a result of discussions in this Chamber.
However, it seems that that point is still not understood by the influential Constitution Unit which my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas mentioned. In a letter to the press last week, the chairman of that unit revealed that he thought that because most amendments made in this House were government amendments, that meant that they had nothing to do with amendments that had previously been introduced by Peers. That is a considerable misunderstanding.
The experience of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, led him to think that the Scots parliament will probably need a second Chamber in due time. The experience of other noble Lords has led them to take the same view. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, and to others. My noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton spoke of the difference between pre-legislative consultation on a Bill and post-legislative scrutiny of it. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that the experience of those of us who participated in the pre-legislative scrutiny of several Bills in the last Session and, I think, the Session before was that that was a very different process. It was a useful process, but it was nothing like the same as looking at a Bill for a second time once it has passed through another place. I agree with those noble Lords whom I have just mentioned.
In Committee, I said that in our system, where the legislative process is so detailed and involves fixing detailed wording into statute, that which is brought forward from the Commons is often lacking in those respects. It needs testing—and it needs testing by more than one group of legislators. Pre-legislative consultation certainly helps but it is not the same thing at all as a second, detailed, focused examination later.
I look back at many Bills in which I have taken part in this House which are now part of the law of Scotland. There have been big government Bills and lesser

1583
government Bills brought forward by governments of both parties. I look back at a number of Private Members' Bills which I have had the privilege of taking through this House. The vast majority of those Bills would have been less workable and less user friendly for the people of Scotland had it not been for amendments brought forward here and subsequently accepted by the government of the day.
The Minister has yawned quite a bit during this debate. I do not think he should because I believe that if the Government do not put some kind of enabling clause in this Bill to make it absolutely plain that the Scots parliament will be within its rights—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. For the sake of accuracy I was not yawning but I have recently cracked a tooth and I am trying to find out what has happened to it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I express my deepest sympathy for the noble Lord. That is a horrible thing to happen.
I believe that if the Government do not put something like this amendment in the Bill, the time will come when the Scots parliament and the people of Scotland will rue the day because there will be a good deal of argument about whether they do or do not have a right to set up a second chamber. That would be the greatest possible pity. What is wrong with accepting an amendment such as this?
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Carnegy has made a powerful argument in favour of this amendment. I would like just to add a few points. This amendment could do no harm and it may be found at a later stage to be necessary. It is merely giving an enabling power. It is a power to the Scottish parliament alone. It will have control of the matter to decide whether there should be a second chamber. If it finds that in one way and another, and in spite of the complication of the legislative powers which it is given under the Bill, and the great detail, nevertheless its legislation turns out to be perfect, there will be no need for a second chamber. But if, on the other hand, as in the United Kingdom parliament, it is found that the second chamber is necessary for revising legislation, then the Scottish parliament could set up a second chamber and that would help enormously. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth—if I may have his attention for one moment—said that this has come rather late. But surely if it is worth doing, it is better late than never.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I think there are some points that are worth considering in relation to a second chamber. Like other noble Lords in the Chamber I have fair experience of legislation in another place both when in opposition and when in government. The Scottish parliament will have 129 members and of course a number will have official positions and will not be available to sit on committees. I am not aware of how the scrutiny committee will scrutinise Bills. I do
1584
not know whether the system will be roughly the same as at Westminster. However, if there are, say, 120 available members they will be extremely stretched to scrutinise all the Bills that are being bandied about Scotland at the present time. I should have thought they would welcome a second chamber which might enable them to pass on some of the weight of the legislative work during the course of any one year.
Another point that I think is worth bearing in mind is the following. The House of Commons has more than 600 members and this House has perhaps 300 or 400 regular attenders. There is an enormous breadth of experience in this Parliament which cannot possibly be equalled by the experience of the 129 members of the Scottish parliament. They may welcome advice from experts in a second chamber on a whole host of issues of which they perhaps do not have much practical knowledge themselves.
Noble Lords on this side of the Chamber have made an important point; namely, that we are not asking for a second chamber to be set up, but rather to be given the opportunity for it to be established if that is found to be necessary. There is no reason why that point should not be discussed now. I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, thinks that discussing that now is any more likely to make Scotland seek independence than is the case under the present proposals and under the present Labour Government. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to this measure as a constructive and helpful way of promoting good legislation in Scotland rather than thinking of it as being critical, as Members on the Government Front Bench seem to think.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, this amendment is attractive to a degree but it defeats the purpose of working for a more consensual approach in the Scottish parliament. This United Kingdom Parliament is far too busy and definitely needs a second chamber. Procedural devices in the other place such as guillotine Motions and the absence of the right to be heard are well known to allow legislation to be passed with many clauses not being considered. That was certainly the case with the Bill we are discussing.
I do not believe that the Scottish parliament will be that busy. Provided the promised pre-legislative process is seriously adopted and the various stages of scrutiny are not limited by time and all members of the parliament are able to be heard, I believe that the need for a second chamber will not be established. I may prove to be wrong and no doubt many people will point this out to me if that occurs, and the Scotland Act may have to be amended subsequently, but I do not believe that we should plan for such a failure at this time.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, people always wanted to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, when he was in another place and the same is true of this Chamber. He commands great experience and wisdom and he is much respected in your Lordships' House on this subject. I was, however, surprised to hear him make a speech purporting to limit the functions of the Scottish parliament. All this

1585
amendment would do is to enable the Scottish parliament to have a second chamber, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. It enables the Scottish parliament to have a second chamber if it so wishes.
When all is said and done, this is an amendment which the Government would be well advised to accept in the interests of strengthening rather than weakening the Scottish parliament to give it all the powers they possibly can.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene but the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, prompted me to say a few words. Having had responsibility for taking a number of long and complex Bills through another place I do not think this is a matter of being consensual. The legislative process—Bills these days are so complex—requires a second stage of consideration, whatever kind of scrutiny committee one might set up in advance. I do not wish to repeat comments which have been made by other noble Lords except to say that I believe almost all the legislation which I have had anything to do with over the years has benefited from consideration by a revising chamber partly because issues arise, often for the first time, when legislation is brought before another place, but also because the very process of discussion in another place generates a degree of external interest and comment which cannot normally be taken into account in advance until those issues are properly debated in the legislative chamber.
I cannot foresee how detailed legislation will be in Scotland or whether it will differ from the nature of Westminster legislation. However, on the evidence that we have on the Bills that we consider I should have thought it almost essential to have a second stage, unless we can work out an entirely different approach to getting the text of Bills right before they are enacted. After they are enacted it is much more difficult to reverse them, because in order to do so new primary legislation is needed.
Lord Desai: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, I now understand why the British economy is in such a mess—the Budget is never revised in the Second Chamber!
5 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I should make it absolutely clear from the start that the adoption of these proposals would be incompatible with government proposals as described in the White Paper and overwhelmingly endorsed by the Scottish people in the referendum last September.
We have to ask ourselves simply: what is the purpose of the Bill? Its purpose is to lay down the structure, function and powers of a Scottish parliament. We have reached that stage after a long process, indicated and alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth; namely, the work of the constitutional convention and the commission that worked with it. The proposals that came out of that consultation were clearly
1586
set out in the White Paper and endorsed by the electorate. So there is agreement in Scotland about the structure, function and powers of a Scottish parliament.
It is not as though the constitutional convention and the whole consultative process somehow put to one side the issue of a second chamber. They did not. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, reminded us, they deliberately examined the case for a second chamber. They studied it, scrutinised it, and rejected it. I believe that they were right to do so.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. He mentioned that the referendum endorsed proposals for the Scottish parliament. The referendum was not on the question of whether the parliament should be a single chamber or bicameral. The Scottish public have never been consulted on the matter. They have no idea.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Earl is in error on that point. In the referendum the Scottish people were asked to endorse the proposals contained in the White Paper. It was not a minor publication which came out at dead of night and was forgotten. At the time it was a best-seller in Scottish bookshops and the biggest seller that Her Majesty's Stationery Office in Scotland has ever had. The scheme was explicit. It was subject to debate in the Scottish media. People knew what they were buying. There was no doubt at all that the people of Scotland knew in detail the type of parliament that they were being invited to endorse.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, says it is not his intention to impose a second chamber; that this is a permissive or enabling power to give the parliament the ability if it wishes to create a second chamber in the future. That is dodging the issue. Either we are in favour of a second chamber for a Scottish parliament or we are against it. That should be made clear in the Bill. It is not right on a major issue regarding the structure of the parliament to try to weasel our way out by providing for its possible creation through an enabling provision. Although flexibility is important, it has its limits—as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is often only too happy to remind us. A proposal which deals with a fundamental aspect of the settlement should either be explicit in the Bill or be excluded from the Bill. We have reached the stage of placing before the House the clear, detailed proposals on the structure of the parliament. As I have said, they were the result of a major process of consultation over a period of years in Scotland—indeed for some of us it was a period of decades.
However, there was always recognition that there would be a need to involve what have been referred to as the checks and balances in the process, and to do so in a way that was not necessarily derived from the Westminster model. We were able to look elsewhere. We were able to examine the satisfactorily functioning unicameral parliaments, particularly in the Nordic countries—Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and Finland—all of which are mature, successful democracies functioning without a second chamber. The majority of the German Länder are also single-chamber parliaments.

1587
When we examine how those parliaments address the business of legislation, we find some very interesting developments. The Finnish Parliament has operated with a unicameral system since early this century. The Swedish Parliament adopted such an approach more recently. In both cases the parliaments ensure by means other than a separate second chamber adequate opportunities to scrutinise legislative proposals. In the Finnish Parliament, for example, the subject committees play an important role in examining legislative proposals and consult with non-government bodies on them. That is the approach that we have tried to capture for the Scottish parliament. It is a new and different approach from the one we have traditionally taken to our business at Westminster.
That is why we have set up the consultative steering group established by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The steering group has already recognised the importance of putting in place procedures to facilitate and encourage prior consultation on legislative proposals. It has endorsed the concept of ensuring that there are strong committees in the parliament able to scrutinise effectively any legislation that is brought before it. I have no doubt that the steering committee's report and recommendations will provide for the appropriate checks and balances to ensure that the parliament works effectively as a second chamber.
We have no difficulty with the very important idea of ensuring that there is an appropriate, effective and workable means of ensuring scrutiny of the executive's legislative proposals and to offer the opportunity for revision. But to have that it is not necessary to have a second chamber, as we have seen through the mature and established working examples of the Nordic parliaments.
I admire the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for his political gymnastics from time to time. I should perhaps therefore resist the temptation to make a point when he occasionally falls flat on his face. However, perhaps I should not resist that temptation today. I remember that one of the main arguments advanced as to why we should not have devolution was that Scotland was in danger of being over-governed; that there was a danger of building a massively expensive structure that the people of Scotland did not want. That argument sits oddly with the proposal for enabling a second chamber—another level of government; and, no doubt, a more expensive one—to be established.
Over a long period of time a large number of people involved in the public life of Scotland considered the whole issue of how a Scottish parliament should be structured and the powers and functions that it should have. Those proposals were subject to discussion and debate within Scotland. They were encapsulated in the White Paper that was placed before the people of Scotland and endorsed by them. Those proposals clearly indicated the character of the parliament. That parliament was deliberately conceived as a unicameral one which would establish a strong committee structure, thus enabling the scrutiny of legislation to take place, which would hold the executive to account and which,
1588
in relation to the detailed points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, would encourage the publication of draft Bills.
I believe that the Government have got it right and that there is no need for a second chamber. Attempting to achieve that through the provision of an enabling power is ducking the issue. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder if he would clarify a point for me. I was impressed by his description of the system in the Nordic countries. He touched on the German Länder, about which I have had some instruction during the course of German lessons that take place in your Lordships' House. The size of the Federal Republic of Germany may be out of kilter with that of Scotland, but, as I understand it, in Germany and perhaps in Switzerland—though I hesitate to mention it because it may rouse the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon—there is a clear structure of lower tiers of government which work their way up to the unicameral system. Representatives of the German Länder go to the Bundesrat and there is therefore a fairly clear structure. Does the Minister have it in mind that in, say, five years' time or longer there could be a power for the Scottish parliament to evolve a system? I understand that the proposal is that there should be pre-legislative scrutiny and committees. Will the Government stop at that or will they give power to the parliament to have a wider review of the political system within Scotland? If the Minister believes that the system proposed is adequate, he might care to glance, as I did today, at the front pages of the Herald and the Scotsman and read the result of what I understand were some successful meetings yesterday. These proposals have only arisen at this late stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House, after 15 months of study. I wonder whether a pre-legislative scrutiny mechanism would be satisfactory.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, because it will be a unicameral parliament, there will be a great onus on those involved to establish the most effective pre-legislative arrangements. Those who have been involved in the argument from the early days have always had this at the front of their minds. There is no difference between any of us on the importance and priority that we attach to this matter.
With regard to the extent to which the Scottish parliament could change the political structure of Scotland, clearly the most obvious area for that is local government. It would be perfectly possible for a Scottish parliament to change the structure of local government in Scotland.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Minister did not reply to a single point I made. I do not take him to task for that; there were many speakers and he may have thought my points were not worth replying to.
It is noticeable that none of the noble Lords on his Benches who, out of the depths of legislative experience, previously disagreed with him—none of

1589
whom are inflexible or out-of-date people—are present here today. I believe that it behoves the Minister to tell us why he did not explain to them that they were wrong and whether he thinks that the dozens of amendments he is making in this second Chamber today, as a result of scrutiny in this House and of the time he has been granted because of the second round of scrutiny, are necessary. Would the Bill be just as good without them? How could the process be carried out without a second chamber? This is a practical point, not a political one. The people of Scotland have not had a chance to know about the need for a second chamber. The Minister is right: they think that there will not be one. However, I am sure that they would not mind if there were a clause enabling the parliament to have a second chamber if it so desired. I believe the Minister owes it to us all to reply briefly to those points.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall reply briefly. As to my noble friends who may or may not be present today, I suggest that it is possible that they are not speaking in the debate because they have read Hansard and have been convinced by the arguments I deployed at an earlier stage.
On the more substantial point that the noble Baroness made, I have tried to emphasise that there is no difference between us as regards the need for scrutiny and revision. Where we differ is that the noble Baroness believes that that is only possible by having a second chamber, whereas the Government believe that it is not necessary to have a second chamber in order to establish the institutions of scrutiny and revision. I have prayed in aid the example of the Nordic parliaments, where there is proper, effective and adequate process of scrutiny and revision within the structure of a unicameral parliament.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. Some of us were wondering which of the noble Lord's teeth had cracked. From his reply, I suspect that it was his wisdom tooth.
I hope that we shall not be told constantly that, because the people of Scotland did not make a decision on X, Y or Z matter, we therefore cannot proceed with it. There were only two questions. One was quite general, the other a little more specific, and that was an end to it. The very fact that the Government are proposing amendments suggests that they are prepared to make changes as the Bill proceeds.
The Minister has made it clear that he believes that a second chamber will not be necessary, and therefore he does not believe that members of the Scottish parliament should have the power to consider whether it might be necessary. If my amendment is not included in the legislation, if the Minister does not accept the next series of amendments and if the number of MSPs declines from about 130, which the Government believe the parliament needs, to just over a 100 in, say, eight years' time, it may be that the need for a second chamber and some additional brains to consider legislation will become more important. I presume that if at that stage the Scottish parliamentarians decide that they would like
1590
to have a second chamber, they would have to ask this Parliament to put a Bill through. The Minister is nodding in agreement, so I have correctly interpreted that matter. That is unfortunate. I was trying to be as modest as I could be in the amendment that I proposed. I am grateful to all my noble friends for their support for the proposition that there should be a second chamber.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was unusually uncharitable in his comments. One normally hears from the Liberal Democrats that the Scottish parliament will be consensual and non-confrontational in its approach. The noble Lord has been fairly confrontational. Perhaps he will have to learn to adopt a non-confrontational approach before the Scottish parliament comes into being, although given the way in which Scottish politics is developing at the moment according to the newspapers, radio and television, there is not much that is non-confrontational, whether it be the SNP or the governing party. They are at each other's throats in a way that would do credit to the other place.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that it is not a good argument simply to say that all of this has been considered in the constitutional convention and that is the last word on it. I know that he does not believe my credentials to be any good. I just live in Scotland and I suppose that I must live with whatever comes along. I do not appear to have any particular right to voice my opinion on these matters. But the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, whose status is second to none as far as concerns the constitutional convention, expressed considerable reservations about the lack of a second chamber. He thought that that was worth considering. I quoted him to that effect earlier today. I suspect that the noble Lord knows that the Government will not shift and he feels that it is easier not to be here. No doubt the noble Lord will speak for himself.
The most amazing assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was that if there were a second chamber it would feed separatism. My goodness, it is a bit late in the day for the Liberal Democrats to be worried about feeding separatism. They have made a pretty good job of it. Alex Salmond is enjoying his diet very much at the moment. I believe that that was a bogus argument. A second chamber could help to dispel separatism by acting as a check or balance to a lower chamber that might easily be dominated by the SNP at one election or another.
However, I can tell when I shall not make any progress with the Minister. As we are to deal with a very important issue in respect of which noble Lords may be able to tease the Minister by asking whether or not the Government are in breach of the White Paper and the constitutional convention, I seek leave to withdrawn my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Constituencies, regions and regional members]:
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 60, line 5, after ("Constituencies") insert ("of the Scottish Parliament").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3 in my name and that of a number of my noble friends. In moving this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 6 to 9. I shall also refer to Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 24 in this group, which relate to a slightly separate issue.
These amendments are designed to address the curious anomaly in the position of the Government that has arisen since the publication of the report of the constitutional convention. That has linked the number of seats at Westminster to the number of constituencies in the Scottish parliament. In turn they are linked to the number of regional members in the Scottish parliament, which means that, in order to solve the West Lothian question, whereby the number of representatives in the Westminster Parliament is reduced, the Scottish parliament that has given rise to the need for that reduction itself reduces. One comes down to the absurd realisation that if ultimately it is decided that the proper answer to the West Lothian question is 10 MPs for Scotland, there will be about 15 people in Edinburgh to administer the whole of Scotland.
Amendment No. 3 is a paving amendment to allow the other amendments to go through. The main meat of our argument lies in Amendments Nos. 6 and 9 which seek to enable the Scottish parliament to decide its own representation and therefore restore broadly the position set out in the report of the constitutional convention. Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 24 essentially reinforce that and take a belt and braces approach. They also offer a compromise in that if the first-past-the-post members are altered it allows for the regional members to be topped up to maintain the number at 129.
When this Bill was debated at Second Reading, which in real time was many months ago and was a good 12 days ago in parliamentary time, I spoke warmly in favour of the measure as a whole. That support for devolution and for the parliament in Edinburgh has not diminished one wit either in me or in my noble friends. During Second Reading I pointed out two very grave concerns. I believed that the more important one was the curious Catch 22 that had been created after the major debates had taken place in the constitutional convention. I believe that it was first introduced when the Bill was in another place.
At Committee stage my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood set out our position on this issue in detail. I believe that he did it with great cogency. I am extremely sorry that he has been detained in Luxembourg today and is not here to put the case himself. I am sure that he would have done it with considerably greater lucidity than I can and, more importantly, with the far greater authority that his voice would carry as a co-chairman of the constitutional convention. I am sorry that he is not here and I crave your Lordships' indulgence that a humble man from Caithness has to do the job. I believe that the position of the government is wholly ridiculous. It completely defies logic in order to tie a neat little administrative bow between the Westminster constituencies and the proposed Scottish constituencies. No other defence has been advanced for it.
I remind noble Lords of the three very powerful arguments in favour of the amendment, contrary to the position of the Government. The first argument, which I believe to be very powerful, is that it restores the position as it was understood and agreed in the constitutional convention. I submit that the Government's position in this matter is contrary to the spirit of devolution. Secondly, the inevitable reduction which is the consequence of the Government's position will seriously impair the working of the new parliament. Thirdly, I have no doubt that, were the Government's proposals to be carried through and this amendment not passed, the breadth and depth of representation in the Scottish parliament would be reduced. There are many other important and detailed arguments, but I leave them to my noble friends to put before the House.
I return to the first argument. I speak with the slight risk of being teased by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I always enjoy it because usually it means that I am in the right. The other day the noble Lord chided me for reading from my own speeches so I shall read from somebody else's. I remind noble Lords of the words used by my noble friend in moving this amendment:
"I can tell the Committee that there is no issue more thoroughly debated, argued and discussed, both formally within the convention and in the corridors outside, than the vexed question of the appropriate number of members of the new Scottish parliament.
There is every indication that the Government propose a major breach of the agreement reached in the constitutional convention".— [Official Report, 8/7/98; col. 1332.]
I turn to page 21 of the report of the constitutional convention:
"The total size of the Parliament will be 129 Members".
It goes on to say at page 22:
"The system which the convention has devised is the outcome of long and detailed discussions. It should not be easily challenged or changed without careful and democratic scrutiny".
In the debate that we have just had the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, eloquently and persuasively put forward a strong case for the checks and balances that will exist within the new chamber. I believe that the Government's position in relation to this amendment is diametrically opposite to the view expressed by the noble Lord in the previous debate.
If I may come to my second argument, I really do believe that if we have this curious anomaly whereby the number of MPs is reduced at the wave of some magic wand down to a bare 100, which is barely twice the number of people that sit in the local government in Inverness, there simply will not be enough people to go around to sit on the committees, to pre-scrutinise legislation, to form the administration and to form the opposition. His very own argument against the second chamber stands proof of the folly of the Government's position in regard to this matter.
My third argument is on the question of representation. The constitutional convention was at great pains to bring forward a system which sought as far as possible solutions to all the divergent problems and views which exist within Scotland. There is the question that those of us who live in the far north are

1593
frightened that the domination of Westminster simply becomes the domination of Edinburgh. I am much reassured by the regional structure that has been put in that the views of those in more rural areas will be heard and we will have our voice heard in Edinburgh. Reduction is bound to impact on that. Where will the reduction come? Will it come from us in the north reinforcing the central belt concerns, or will it come from the central belt reinforcing their concerns of a tartan-clad army coming down from the Highlands to dominate the parliament? Either way we are on a hiding to nothing.
I shall stick with those three powerful arguments and leave my noble friends to pick up other points. However, I have just one observation to make. When we finished this debate in Committee the Caithness Courier carried a report. I do not quite know why the latter should have picked it up but it did. I was at the Halkirk Highland Games a day or two after that. I have never experienced so many people coming to me and saying, "I had no idea this was in the Bill" and telling me how right we were to press forward. I do not believe there is anybody in Scotland who actually understands what this means who does not wish the Government to reverse their position and accept our extremely logical proposal.
I am sure that we shall have a very interesting debate. We may even have quite a long debate but when the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, comes to the Dispatch Box, which I am sure he will do with his customary courtesy honeyed with humour, I hope, as he seeks to defend his position with all his intellectual might and an undoubtedly sound brief, that what he will do is look into his heart where I am certain—and I guess this—he is with me. Let his heart on this occasion rule his head. Please, I ask him, let him concede because I must warn him: if he does not, we on these Benches regard these amendments as fundamental and crucial and we shall certainly wish to seek the opinion of your Lordships' House.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 20 and 25.
It gives me enormous pleasure for very nearly the first time since I have been in your Lordships' House to be fully behind the Liberal Party on this issue. A very cogent point has been put by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I cannot see any logic at all in building a parliament for 129 people and all their offices and then reducing the number at a later date to 108, 100, or whatever the number might be. Apart from the complete waste of capital money involved in doing that, the whole thing seems to me to be completely illogical. I had hoped that by now the noble Lords in the Liberal Party and in my own party would have managed to get together and bring forward a common amendment for this. We are all after the same thing, but there are at least four different proposals saying virtually the same thing in different words. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso said, this is an important issue; it is absolutely fundamental to the whole thing. The White Paper quite clearly stated that there would be 129 Members in this
1594
parliament and we now learn during the course of this Bill's progress that this could be reduced. That must be resisted at all costs. I hope that the noble Lord who will be doing the answering has got a heart and that he manages to use it.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I rise to support my noble kinsman and my noble friend wholeheartedly in what he said. It was clearly agreed by the constitutional convention that the number of MSPs should be 129 in order to maintain proportionality. That was 73 constituency Members and 56 additional ones. The Government are already reneging on this agreement and we wonder why. If the Government want to reduce the Members at Westminster, there is no reason why this should affect the number of MSPs.
We do understand the argument about over-representation at Westminster. The situation is different for Scotland. The argument that there should be similar boundaries for both is not a good one. I have heard the Government put the argument that it is confusing for the electorate. I do not believe the electorate is really that stupid. It is already used to a range of different boundaries for different candidates for Westminster, for local government and for Europe, and it is also used to changing boundaries. This is a totally new situation and, therefore, different boundaries are part of the newness. What is much more confusing is to institute something new and then immediately start to change it. It is the worst of all worlds and it means that you are in a position of uncertainty from the word go. I believe also that it is politically inept because it gives a lever to opposition parties and has, as I am sure noble Lords already know, resulted in some not very favourable comment in the Scottish press.
Clarity, stability and consistency are essential for our new parliament and to signal that the original boundaries are to be changed within a short space of time is to launch with uncertainty for the future, create inconsistency from the beginning and undermine confidence from the start. I cannot believe that this is what the Government really want.
The figure of one hundred and twenty-nine MPs, as my noble kinsman has said, was agreed after much consultation in the constitutional convention in order to give the vital element of proportionality, which is the cornerstone of the new parliament and one of the key features which distinguishes it from Westminster. It is part of the reason, I believe, that the people of Scotland have responded with such enthusiasm and support for the parliament. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, acknowledged during the Committee stage of this Bill on 8th July that the greater proportionality built stability into the system, the stability that we want and need. The White Paper underlines this. To reduce the number from 129 reduces that proportionality. It thus erodes the very feature of stability which is so essential. Is this what the Government really want?
As I understand it the number of MSPs was also calculated, as we have already heard, on the ability of the MPs in the Scottish parliament to do the business effectively. We must have a parliament that works efficiently. We must have enough people there to do the

1595
job. We have also heard—and I must endorse this too—that any reduction would reduce the chances of smaller parties—like the Green Party, for example—to have some representation in the Scottish parliament. I believe that this is another important and distinguishing feature of the possibilities offered by the new Scottish parliament which was so appealing to the Scottish people. There is already some concern that what seemed to be so attractively on offer in the early days in terms of this wider representation, including even independent members, has diminished to virtually nothing.
The reduction proposed by the Government would narrow the base and diminish the opportunities. I believe that it is in complete opposition to the spirit of the proposals of the constitutional convention. As my noble kinsman said, the diminution of rural representation—we cannot allow that in a country such as ours—plays to the fears that in Scotland we shall have a parliament dominated by the central belt. That would be a real anathema.
Lastly, in purely practical terms, the new building will be designed to accommodate some number of MPs. Designing and building in facilities for an unspecified number could not be more impractical and costly, and is a hallmark of had management. I am sure that the Government would not wish to find themselves characterised as a bad manager. It is inevitable that if up to 20 members have to be provided for at the beginning who then melt away, the result will be an enormous waste. Such details are the hallmark of the quality of any operation. I believe that the signals are very bad.
I return to the terms of the stability, consistency and coherence so necessary at the start of any enterprise. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, who I see in his place, knows about good management, and the importance of good planning and attention to detail. One might say that the devil is often in the detail.
I do not believe that the insecurity which the Government are building into their plans is what they really want. It must be bad politics as well as bad management. We cannot support it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, what the noble kinspeople have said is absolutely right. I agree with them. We have heard all about what happened in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The question is: why have we got where we are; and what will the Government do about it? The Government have a problem.
Let us remind ourselves why the constitutional convention decided as it did without regard to what might happen at Westminster. It was not asked to consider what happened at Westminster. Its terms of reference asked it to devise a scheme for Scotland and to sell it to the people of Scotland. That was reasonable enough. It did that. It did not consider this difficulty. If it considered the difficulty, it did not come within the terms of reference. I may be told that that is not so, but I looked up the terms of reference and spoke on the subject two Queen's Speeches ago, so I believe that I am right on that.
1596
The Government's problem is this. If there were as yet no Scottish National Party in existence, the implementation of this part of the Bill would bring about a Scottish national party. I say "the implementation" because it is only when it happens that the trouble will really begin. On the face of it, the Government's plan seems reasonable in the circumstances. It would be most convenient for voters to have the same constituencies for Westminster and for Holyrood. The description of the scheme in the White Paper, and given by the noble Lord in Committee in this Chamber, was very reasonable. It sounded sensible. If we are going to reduce the number of Members of the Scottish parliament, it is wise not to alter the balance between constituency Members and proportional representation Members, when one considers the problems that we already perceive of the effect that proportional representation may have on the way in which the electorate views the issue.
Most people agree that the number of Westminster MPs should be reduced. But let us imagine what will happen when that comes about. The Boundary Commission recommends a reduction in the number of Scots MPs at Westminster and the constituency boundaries. The elected members of the Scottish parliament have to be reduced, and the boundaries changed because of that. The Scottish parliament will explode. The Scottish National Party, which has been keeping rather quiet because it is just the kind of row for which it is waiting, will explode too. What is the solution proposed by Scotland? It is that the Westminster boundaries should not be changed. That is what will happen, and English MPs at Westminster will explode too, and with reason.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 looks and sounds reasonable. We all know why the problem has occurred. The Liberal Democrats know why the problem has occurred. It is right that the problem has to be solved. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has an amendment on this matter to which he will speak. The only alternative is that proposed by my noble friend and the Liberal Democrats. An inconvenience to Scots voters and to party campaigners which would not affect voters elsewhere in the UK is the least of two difficult alternatives.
There is a long history on this issue. We have a great problem. However, I believe that what my noble friend proposes, for which the amendment provides, is the only way forward.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, on having 129 MPs. It would be an entirely wrong signal if we were to set up a parliament and inform those elected to it at the same time that a large proportion of their number would be axed shortly by the Boundary Commission.
In relation to the Westminster Parliament, because of the West Lothian question, the issue is quite different. If Stormont is a precedent to go by, the arguments for reducing the numbers in the House of Commons are

1597
substantial. On 24th July, the Secretary of State said in Hansard that due weight should be given to geographical consideration and local ties. I strongly believe that to be the case.
The Highlands and Islands of Scotland require a considerable number of representatives because of the immense distances involved. They need to have lifeline services both through air and ferry travel. There are also the health needs of those concerned. I could not help but recall a book written by the father-in-law of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, called Laxdale Hall. The story was that English politicians went to remote communities in the Highlands and Islands to advise them to live in centres of population and their problems would then be resolved; they would have plenty of public expenditure for which they were calling. That has occurred only in the case of St. Kilda. I do not seriously believe that any politician of any political party would advocate today the measures that were applied to the residents of St. Kilda, which had special circumstances. Even then that was an intensively controversial decision. The needs of remote rural communities are sufficiently strong to require a considerable number of representatives, so that the immense distances can be effectively covered.
At stake is whether the well-being of the Scots parliament should come first or the administrative convenience of the public servants who would have to draw up two sets of boundaries. I believe strongly that the well-being of the Scots parliament should come first: that continuity is important; and that to have immense chops and changes in numbers as soon as the parliament is created would give the wrong signal. It would be unsettling at the beginning of the parliament; and it would be neither desirable nor necessary. I hope most earnestly that the Minister will listen to the argument for 129 MSPs.
Lord Sempill: My Lords, I, too, strongly support this group of amendments. Since I was last in your Lordships' House I have been following the advice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and have been actively pursuing my goal of winning a seat in the new Scottish parliament. That has enabled me to visit many doorsteps and speak to many people. In addition, I have taken opportunities to attend various forums.
I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, in his place because as Scottish Minister for Trade and Industry he recently addressed such a forum. It was held on Monday by the Scottish Council Foundation and I found the day most interesting. It comprised more than 100 Scottish businessmen, most from small businesses. Unfortunately, the noble Lord had to leave after his address—his keynote speech—and missed some of the later discussions.
Having attended various such forums and had many doorstep conversations, I wish to make the following points. I maintain that there is a high expectation of what the parliament will deliver, but underlying that is a strong mood of uncertainty. The potential cut in numbers is a divisive issue and I, too, strongly recommend the Government to look at it carefully.
1598
The new parliament will need time to establish credibility. I do not know whether that will be in the first or second session, but it will certainly be a five-year period.
The Scottish media are describing Scottish representatives in the other place as being marginalised. I maintain that the constituency MSPs will have stronger relationships with the electorate. The Scottish electorate will expect a great deal more from their MSPs than they have from their Westminster MPs purely and simply because they will be on their doorsteps and ready and available to be spoken to. Following from discussions earlier today, I point out that there will be substantially more discussion in a unicameral chamber. I maintain that if the committee consultative system is to be run there must be a minimum of 120 members. It is on that issue that I underline my support for this group of amendments.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that the nationalists will see the move as an opportunity because they will offer the one thing that it will create—greater representation by going independent. That must be taken into consideration.
Finally, I make a gardening analogy. Plants when put into the ground take time to root. Heavy pruning can have two results, but certainly we could end up with a plant which has many more thorns than flowers. I caution the Government that if there were ever a time to stay with 129 members it is now.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the success of the devolution project will depend on the confidence of the Scottish people. That confidence will come from the achievement of the correct level of autonomy for Scotland in the medium term. I expect that more powers will be sought by the Scottish people and their parliament and that the list of reserved matters will be reduced over the years. While recognising that there is a paradoxical demand in Scotland for political autonomy and to remain British, I believe that the Scottish parliament will become more busy than I first predicted. In that circumstance, it will be necessary to retain all 129 members to carry out the increase in work. I suspect that the original Liberal Democrat proposal for 145 members will come to be seen as correct. However, that was not the agreement reached.
Any attempt to reduce the membership in the near future will be placed dangerously as a gift at the feet of those with a separatist agenda and no doubt a parliament with abundantly adequate membership.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the grouping is complex and I do not complain about it. It contains four or five sub-groups, all of which relate to the same issue. I am talking to the group in my name, which starts with Amendment No. 4. However, my amendments and those in the group tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, address the same issue, as do those in the group tabled by my noble friend Lord Rowallan.
I am a little puzzled by Amendment No. 3. Perhaps I may do what those on the Liberal Democrat Benches do and give the ministerial reply—that it seems to be

1599
totally and absolutely unnecessary. The first line of Schedule 1 reads:
"The constituencies for the purposes of this Act are".
Amendment No. 3 would have it read:
"The constituencies of the Scottish Parliament for the purposes of this Act are".
As the Bill is for the purpose of establishing the Scottish parliament, the amendment is meaningless and suggests that the poor Liberal Democrats do not understand the words in the Bill. They are wasting the time of the House by tabling amendments which are so totally unnecessary—as I have been told myself on a number of occasions.
I have a suspicion that they tabled the amendment knowing that it was totally unnecessary, especially given the next three words, because they wanted to move this group ahead of mine. Perhaps that is an evil suspicion which shows that I have not understood what consensual politics are about. But I have no doubt that they want it to be consensual enough for me to marshal my forces in the Lobby with them a little later tonight. Perhaps they should have been a little less confrontational.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, we are not being confrontational at all. The noble Lord has called me a camp follower and I have accepted that. Surely, that is a state of bliss for a Scotsman.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not a convert to non-confrontational politics. I am happily in confrontational politics; it is the noble Lord and his party who want non-confrontational politics.
The point about the two groups—that is, Amendments Nos. 3, 6, 8, 9, 21 and 22 in the name of the Liberal Democrats, 4, 7, 10 to 15 and 19 which are in my name, and 16 to 18 and 20 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rowallan—is that they address the problem in which the Government are caught. The provision comes from Holy Grail and it is unfortunate that no one noticed a contradiction. Page 13 of the White Paper states:
"The distribution of seats in the House of Commons will be reviewed by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission which follow criteria defined in statute … The Government have decided that in the next review this requirement will no longer apply".
That is contained in Clause 82 of the Bill.
Unfortunately for the Government, the Holy Grail later states that members of the Scottish parliament will be elected for each of the current Westminster constituencies. So they got caught in the trap that inevitably they must either uncouple the Scottish members of parliament from the Westminster constituencies or they must reduce the number of Scottish members of parliament. That is the dilemma that faces the Government and at the moment they are not prepared to resolve it.
However, we know that the Scottish Office is keen to resolve the issue and understands the political points. There is a point about the daftness of building a parliament for 129 members and reducing the number to 108 three or four years down the line. There is also a daftness about giving the Scottish National Party such
1600
an obviously good campaigning issue as saying that the Scottish parliament is so much a lackey of Westminster that when Westminster reduces its numbers the Scottish parliament has to fall into line and "Dae as it's telt". I could write the copy myself. We know that the poor Government and the Scottish Office understand that.
Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from the Scotsman in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. An article appeared in that newspaper in the summer by Severin Carrell and Peter MacMahon, its political correspondents. It says this—and it is the problem that the Government have—
"Tony Blair has personally overruled an appeal from Donald Dewar to protect the number of MSPs who will sit at Holyrood, dealing an embarrassing blow to the Scottish Secretary in his fight against the Nationalists.
"Mr. Dewar, hacked by Scottish Office ministers, wanted to redraft the Scotland Bill to remove a clause which would bring about a reduction of up to 21 MSPs in the first few years of the parliament's life.
"However, some Scottish ministers will fear that Mr. Blair has played directly into the hands of the Scottish National Party, reinforcing claims by its leader, Alex Salmond, that policies for Scotland are being dictated by Downing Street … But a Downing Street spokesman said last night that Mr. Blair would not support any changes to the bill because he believes the Government should stick to its initial proposals, made in last year's devolution white paper";
that is, despite the contradiction to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention. The article continues:
"In a statement which caught Mr. Dewar's aides by surprise, the spokesman said: 'The white paper stands. It will not he changed"'.
It is no wonder that in the same article the polls discovered that Alex Salmond is the favourite to be the Scottish First Minister by 42 per cent. over Mr. Dewar's 37 per cent. I know that the polls have improved slightly for the governing party in recent weeks in Scotland. However, the day that all this comes about Mr. Alex Salmond will be laughing all the way to the political bank.
Therefore, I cannot think of anything dafter for the Government to do than to say to this parliament, "You can start off with 129 members, but when the House of Commons inevitably reduces that number to about 58 Scottish members, thanks to Clause 82 of the Bill, your numbers will be reduced in a similar manner—in fact, even more so, because you have to lose another seven to keep the balance of proportionality right".
I believe that that is straightforwardly bad politics. Why should I be trying to save the Labour Government from themselves? As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, the problem is that I live in Scotland so I have to take the castor oil along with the Government—I do not particularly want to—and see the Scottish National Party run my country and move it to independence and break up the Union. Therefore, I hope that the Government are going to listen and amend the Bill accordingly because nothing short of that will do.
There are two other groups of amendments. Amendment No. 11 is a particular hobby-horse of mine. I shall not rehearse it because I shall get an opportunity later to do so. When the Scottish parliamentary boundary commission makes up the seats for the Scottish parliament, it ought to take more account of the

1601
electoral quota than it has in the past. The simple fact of the matter is that in the past boundary commissions in Scotland have created the most ludicrous positions in the contrast between the numbers of constituents in constituencies. For example, the city of Edinburgh has an average of 62,000 per constituency whereas Glasgow has 51,500. The conclusion may be that Glasgow MPs are not capable of looking after as many constituents as Edinburgh MPs. That may be true.
Out in the country, for example, the seat of Ross, Skye and Inverness West held by the Liberal Democrats has 56,000 constituents, which is just above the quota. However, it is a huge seat in one geographical area. Even bigger at 66,500 constituents is Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber. There is also the constituency of Carrick, Cumnock and the Doon Valley with 66,500 constituents. There are others like postage stamps such as Baillieston with 49,000 constituents; Shettleston with 48,000 and Hamilton South with 47,000. They exist in areas where one could walk from one end to the other without breaking sweat.
I shall not even be tempted to speculate because I annoyed the Government Benches when I did so on the last occasion. The amazing fact is that most of the pocket handkerchief constituencies are in West Central Scotland and for a moment I cannot think why that should be. That deals with Amendment No. 11.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are rather different. I have to say to the Liberal Democrats that I cannot support Amendment No. 24. The noble Lord did not speak to it, I believe, but it states that if the Government were to go ahead with the proposal and reduce the number of members of the Scottish parliament by 14 first-past-the-post members, they would then have to increase the number of top-up members from 56 to 70. That means that there would be more top-up members than first-past-the-post members. Personally, I do not approve of that. Given the d'Hondt formula and the regions, the Government have probably got it about right at seven additional members per region. If one seeks to achieve proportionality that is probably about the best number. It does not work in every case, but it does in most. It is certainly hugely better than the four additional members allowed in Wales, which is an inadequate number of top-ups. If one has too many top-ups the parliament becomes largely composed of people who do not represent constituents. My noble friend Lord Sempill made a very valid point in that respect.
Your Lordships know that I do not particularly approve of top-ups or any form of fiddled voting, but if we are to have them then we must keep them in decent proportion. I believe that the Government have got that proportion about right and therefore I could not vote in favour of the Liberal Democrat amendment. I assume that it is something of a backstop to the other amendments.
I do not know how your Lordships and the Government are going to disentangle the complexity of the amendments. I re-echo the position that Scottish Office Ministers have clearly implied; namely, that this is a smoking gun in the body politic in Scotland. If the
1602
Government do not do something about it then those of us who believe in the Union will bitterly regret it when it comes about that the Scottish National Party use it as a launching pad for Scottish independence.
6 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by being uncharacteristically hypothetical. It may help your Lordships, in considering these amendments, which are likely to result in Divisions, that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to on a Division the Government will accept that decision as applying also to Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9, 21 and 22. If Amendment No. 4 is agreed to on Division the Government will accept that decision as applying also to Amendments Nos. 7, 10 and 12 to 15. I hope that indicates the structure within which we shall be making decisions this evening.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has indicated, these amendments cover a rather complex range of issues. We come down to the question of size of the parliament. I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Steel. He is not in his place, but he indicated at a very early stage that he thought that this was a matter of considerable importance and he wished to bring it back for a decision today at Report stage. I also freely recognise the issue of principle which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, raised. He is as close to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, as he is ever likely to get on that issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, has made clear his support for the proposition that the size of the parliament should be fixed. If I am unable to give noble Lords the answer they would like, I hope that they will not think it is because we have somehow dismissed the case in some cavalier way. We have not. We have looked at the matter thoroughly, but come to a different view from those put forward by your Lordships who spoke earlier. I shall try to explain how we have reached our view.
Amendments Nos. 3, 6, 8, 9, 21 and 22 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, closely resemble amendments which the House considered at Committee stage. They seek to break the link between constituencies for the UK Parliament and those for the Scottish parliament. During that earlier debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, supported the Liberal Democrats and has tabled amendments to achieve a similar end. The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, again returns to the same theme. His amendments are intended to break the link but have an interesting twist by amending the rules under which the Boundary Commission is to work. It would fix for all time the number of members of the Scottish parliament at 129.
As I have indicated, we have approached this somewhat differently. Our starting point is the priority we give to maintaining the link between Westminster and the Scottish parliament constituencies. That is a thread that ran throughout the discussions in the constitutional convention and in the proposals contained in the White Paper.
We recognise that that will cause a reduction in the size of the parliament, but we do not believe that that will have unmanageable consequences for the

1603
parliament. We believe that by maintaining that link we provide something which is understandable, clear and simple: the idea that you live in a constituency and, in that constituency, you can vote for a Member of the Westminster Parliament and you can vote for a member of the Scottish parliament. It is simple and obvious. There is no confusion; it is absolutely straight.
I have difficulty with the accusation in this debate that the Government have somehow reneged on a commitment they gave, a comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. I dispute that. The Government have in no way reneged but have maintained a consistent position throughout.
First, let us look at the constitutional convention. The constitutional convention's number was 129. That is not some magic number; you would have to be quite perverse to pull down 129, of all numbers, as somehow the ideal number for the size of the Scottish parliament. There was a process—an argument—that developed the figure of 129. It was quite simple. The starting point was the Westminster constituencies—the 72 Westminster constituencies presently existing—plus the splitting of Orkney and Shetland, which gave 73, and then the proportional factor of seven additional seats for the eight regional groupings. But the fundamental point, the driver to arrive at 129, was the number of Westminster constituencies. That has always been there.
I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The possibility—indeed the probability—of a reduction in the size of the Scottish parliament is made absolutely explicit in the White Paper. There is no reneging. I take great exception to the idea that we are somehow pulling out this proposal in a duplicitous manner.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he know whether the constitutional convention took account of the fact that the number of Westminster seats in Scotland might be reduced? It did not have to, as I pointed out in my speech, but I wonder whether it did. It is just a point of interest for the House.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. My point was that, in arriving at 129, the constitutional convention started with and was driven in its calculations by the driver of the 73 Westminster constituencies. The noble Baroness is quite right, it did not consider the possibility of a reduction in the number of Westminster constituencies. It is not surprising that its recommendations are implicitly silent on what the effect would be on the size of the Scottish parliament if there were a reduction in the number of Scottish seats at Westminster.
In introducing the White Paper, we accepted the argument—and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish was a strong advocate of the argument—that we should move away from the requirement placed on the Boundary Commission to maintain the present level of representation in Scotland. We made that clear in the White Paper, Scotland's Parliament. I will quote for the sake of completeness. Paragraph 4.5 of the White Paper states:
1604
"The Government have decided that in the next review this requirement will no longer apply".
We then move on to the relationship between the Westminster seats and the size of the Scottish parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has identified, that is dealt with in paragraph 8.7 of the White Paper. It says,
"Any changes in Westminster constituencies will result in changes to Scottish parliamentary constituencies; and may also lead to consequential adjustments to the size of the Scottish parliament so as to maintain the present balance between constituency and additional Member seats."
So it has been there, it has been open and it has been explicit. It may be absolutely reasonable to argue and disagree with the Government's proposals, to disagree with what is contained in the White Paper, and to disagree with the process behind that proposition. But it is not fair and it is not reasonable to say, in any sense, that the Government have reneged on any undertaking that they gave. They did not; they have not; and they will not.
I can assure the House that we have thought carefully about the implications for the parliament of a reduction in size. It would be a matter of major concern if the size of the parliament were so reduced that it somehow affected the efficient and effective internal workings of the parliament. We simply do not believe that that will be the case. The size of any likely reduction would not be such that the parliament would be unable to carry out its key roles of scrutinising effectively Scottish legislation and enacting that legislation.
We must keep this debate in proportion. On any realistic assessment, we are not contemplating cutting the membership of the parliament by a half, a third, or even a quarter. Yes, there will be a reduction, but attempts to cast the Government in a role of carrying out some sort of cull of the innocents is not a fair description of what is likely to happen. It is virtually certain that the size of the Scottish parliament—even after the review of the Westminster constituencies—will still comprise more than 100 members. That is a reasonable, proper size for a parliament at Holyrood. It is a size which will enable it to do its job, and to do that job properly.
Turning briefly to Amendment No. 11, this is a slightly different amendment from the others in this particular grouping. It really returns to a point which I know is close to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and it deals with the size of constituencies. The noble Lord again reveals his mathematical past in providing us with a formula. If I interpret his formula properly, he is attempting to ensure that all but seven of the constituencies for the Scottish parliament are within a 10 per cent. margin of the electoral quota. The noble Lord has promised us that he will return to this issue somewhat later in our debates.
The only point I would make is that issue properly rests with the Boundary Commission. The Boundary Commission is given a series of rules. The desire to get equality of size is one of the important factors, but the Boundary Commission is allowed to take into account other factors, like special geographical considerations, including the size, shape and accessibility of the

1605
constituency, and also local sentiment and feeling. At this stage, my only argument would be that once the rules have been set—I do not think the rules can be set in a strictly mathematical way—we should leave it to the Boundary Commission to get on with the job.
Amendment No. 24 takes another tack. It accepts coterminous constituencies and compensates for any reduction in numbers by increasing the number of regional members. Here I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, because what we have sought to do throughout the whole discussion on the size of the parliament is to maintain the balance between the number of members of the Scottish parliament elected under the first-past-the-post provision and the number who are coming through under the so-called corrective mechanism of additional members. Amendment No. 24 significantly upsets that balance. I can appreciate the main objective, which is to secure a particular number, but it has chosen the wrong way of going about securing that number by increasing disproportionately and upsetting the balance in favour of the additional member seats.
I realise that the issue of the size of the Scottish parliament is of considerable importance to many noble Lords. I believe that it is of importance. I believe that our approach is right. I believe that our approach has been consistent, straight and honest throughout. But I do make this point and I ask noble Lords to reflect upon it. We are setting up the Scottish parliament which will initially have 129 members. They will set about their work. I am sure that they will do it well and that they will find that they have sufficient people to do it. I think they will recognise that their work would not be adversely affected by a reduction in their overall number. But if, during the course of the early years of the parliament, they take the view that a reduction in the size of the parliament would have an adverse effect on the way it functioned and operated, it is clearly open to the parliament to petition the United Kingdom Parliament and seek an amendment to the Bill.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Lord not consider the effect on the state of morale of many members of the parliament when they are thinking of the problems of Scotland and realising that 20 of them will have to go long before they have got anywhere with it? That is an important point which the noble Lord has not considered.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I do not think that the size of the Scottish parliament or indeed the size of the other place should be determined by the sensitivities of the members who inhabit it. The size of a parliament has to be justified by means other than perhaps the slight disadvantage and discomfiture that may be caused to its members when the size is reviewed from time to time.
I return to my final point. It is clearly open to the Scottish parliament, if in its early years it feels that a reduction in its size would seriously and significantly affect the way it operated and put its functioning at risk, to make a case to this Parliament
1606
and say, "Look, on the basis of experience, we need a change", and it would be up to this Parliament and the United Kingdom Government to reach a balanced view. I believe that is a sensible and reasonable way forward.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate. I note that many noble Lords have chosen to speak in support of the amendment—in varying degrees and with varying degrees of reluctance—and I also note that no noble Lord has chosen to support the Government's position. That is, as I said in my opening remarks, because the Government's position is insupportable.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I have taken the view that I want to save time and get on with the business, which is why I have not spoken.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am so glad that we have in our midst an economist in the 19th century sense. I do not want to refer to the individual contributions of many of your Lordships but I should like to refer to that of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. When he finished pulling my tail, I understood him to say that he would indeed be supporting us. As I said when opening the debate, I always enjoy being teased by the noble Lord because it usually means that I have got it right. However, I must say that support from him is a little like sniffing the fragrant bloom of a cactus in the desert—you have to be very careful how close you get. I am nonetheless grateful for that support. If he is an unwilling convert to the idea of consensual politics, I promise to go gently with him.
At the end of my opening speech I said that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, would come to the Dispatch Box with his usual courtesy, honeyed with humour, and that I hoped he would let his heart speak instead of the brief in front of him. I got it slightly wrong. He certainly came with his usual courtesy but chose instead ire and obfuscation as his defence of the Government's position. I do not think it hid the weakness of his position. It all comes down to one simple fact. Someone, somewhere—I do not know where—thinks it is a jolly good idea if every constituency in Westminster and every constituency in Scotland has identical boundaries. I do not think for one moment that there is a single voter who knows where the boundaries of his constituency are. It is only those of us in politics who are exercised about that. It is not a matter of great importance. It is simply a neat little administrative parcel.
I come back to the three arguments I gave your Lordships at the beginning of the debate. The Government's position is quite contrary to that set out in the constitutional convention; it will inevitably mean a reduction in the efficiency and working capacity of the

1607
Scottish parliament; and it will reduce the representative nature of that parliament and make it more difficult for minorities and other parties to take part. I believe I made that argument convincingly and the support which your Lordships have been kind enough to give me makes me believe that I should ask the opinion of the House.
6.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 94.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Mersey, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Methuen, L.

Attlee, E.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Avebury, L.

Milverton, L.

Bath, M.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Blatch, B.

Montrose, D.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Burnham, L.

Newby, L.

Byford, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Cadman, L.

Nickson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Northesk, E.

Carlisle, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ogmore, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Pender, L.

Courtown, E.

Perry of Walton, L.

Cross, V.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Denham, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dholakia, L.

Razzall, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rennell, L.

Falkland, V.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rowallan, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sempill, L.

Hooson, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hylton, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jacobs, L.

Stair, E.

Kingsland, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Kintore, E.

Sudeley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinfen, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lucas, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L. [Teller.]

Ludford, B.

Luke, L.

Thurso, V. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Torphichen, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McNair, L.

Warnock, B.

McNally, L.

Weatherill, L.

Maddock, B.

Wigoder, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Marsh, L.

Wise, L.

1608

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Alli, L.

Amos, B.

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

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bach, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Balfour, E.

Levy, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Berkeley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Borrie, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chandos, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Christopher, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Paul, L.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Puttnam, L.

Diamond, L

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gilbert, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goudie, B.

Serota, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sewel, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grenfell, L.

Simon, V.

Hacking, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Hardie, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Thornton, B.

Hayman, B.

Tryon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Uddin, B.

Hoyle, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hughes, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.38 p.m.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 60, line 7, after ("Islands,") insert—
("() the Western Isles,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small amendment. Despite the amendment which has been carried, it is still in the text of the Bill. I checked that during the last debate.
It addresses the question of why Orkney and Shetland are mentioned specifically and the Western Isles are not. I put the argument in Committee and I shall not go over it at length. But if Orkney and Shetland are mentioned specifically as two areas which should be constituencies

1609
on their own account in the Scottish parliament, so also should the Western Isles. I made the same case in relation to what was Clause 81 and is now Clause 82 about the United Kingdom Parliament.
In reply in Committee the Minister described my point as a fair one. He said:
"We had presumed that the geographical nature of the Western Isles would result in their forming a single constituency for all time, although I recognise that, the way the Bill is framed, that is not guaranteed. However, I shall be more than happy to take back this matter and consider the point further".—[Official Report, 8/7/98; cols. 1328–29.]
Before the last Boundary Commission, there was some serious conversation and talk of the Western Isles being joined with Skye. Given modern transport methods, that argument, which once would not even have begun to run, is now something for which one could put forward a reasonable submission. I do not believe that even the reasonableness of that submission should in any way add the Western Isles to any other part of Scotland, including Skye. I should simply like a little protection in the Bill.
I will not go on at length. The Minister said that he was sympathetic and I hope to hear from him that he will accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, it was my understanding at Committee stage that the Government accepted this amendment. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, wishes it, we shall support him.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I have to put a stop to this somehow. The arguments on the merit of providing in the Bill an entrenched position for the Western Isles as a separate constituency have been well aired. I took many of the arguments that were made in Committee and have thought about the case since. However, I am not persuaded.
We would start again with the question of why we were putting in the Bill the provision for separate constituencies for Orkney and Shetland. The reason is simple. At the moment Orkney and Shetland form a single Westminster constituency. To provide for separate Holyrood constituencies for Orkney and Shetland it is necessary to make that explicit in the Bill because of the way in which the building blocks of the Westminster constituencies drive the number and structure of the electoral arrangements for Holyrood.
In relation to the Western Isles there is no need to do that. The Western Isles is already a separate parliamentary constituency and there is no need to secure a separate representation of the Western Isles by putting that provision in the Bill. The effect of putting Orkney and Shetland into the Bill gives a degree of entrenchment to those arrangements, but the entrenchment is not the purpose behind that. The purpose is to create two separate constituencies in the first place.
The difficulty is that if we start from the basis of somehow entrenching present arrangements or the arrangements one wants in terms of constituencies, we
1610
are faced with the difficulty of where to draw the line. Strong arguments will be put forward from a whole number of constituencies that that constituency, as it exists at the present time, should never be changed. If we went down that road, we would be in the strange position where some constituencies in Scotland would be somehow entrenched—fixed for all time—and in others there could be adjustments over a period of time in the light of Boundary Commission decisions.
I can understand the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, tabled the amendment. But it is based on a misunderstanding of why the Orkney and Shetland provision is in the Bill in the first place. As I said, it is necessary to put them in the Bill in order to create two Holyrood constituencies out of what is one Westminster constituency. That does not apply to the Western Isles.
It may be argued that at some future date the Western Isles may be associated with another part of Scotland in a single constituency. But I have greater faith in the ability of the Western Isles to argue the case. The distinctive social, cultural, economic and even political values of that part of the world are such that I would rest assured that the Boundary Commission would find it extremely difficult to disturb the arrangement which exists at the moment. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I understand why Schedule 1 mentions the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands. I suspect, due to one of the deals in the constitutional convention, it was decided that the Orkney and Shetland constituency (which works perfectly happily for Westminster) should be divided for reasons of the Scottish parliament.
The point is that it does that not only the first time, but unless I am mistaken it entrenches that position so that even if a future Boundary Commission decided to put them together or to add to Orkney what is the fairly nearby Caithness, it would not be allowed to do so. When one goes to Clause 82, which involves the arrangements at Westminster, there again the position of Orkney and Shetland is entrenched.
I am therefore not persuaded by the argument that the Western Isles is different. I see no reason why it should not be entrenched. The noble Lord says we should leave it to the common sense of future boundary commissioners. If so, I suggest that for the purposes of the first election and perhaps the second one also, Orkney and Shetland should be two different constituencies. Thereafter it should be left to the good sense of the Boundary Commission. The Minister cannot plead with me that I should leave the Western Isles to the Boundary Commission's good sense and not leave Orkney and Shetland to the same good sense.
In order to get this matter out of the way, I shall ask the opinion of the House so that the Stornoway Gazette can at least print some of the proceedings in your Lordships' Chamber.
6.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 83.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Meston, L.

Ampthill, L.

Methuen, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Avebury, L.

Milverton, L.

Balfour, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Bath, M.

Montrose, D.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Newby, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Byford, B.

Nickson, L.

Cadman, L.

Northesk, E.

Carlisle, E.

Ogmore, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Cross, V.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Denham, L.

Razzall, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rennell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Falkland, V.

Renwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rowallan, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Jacobs, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Kingsland, L.

Sempill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Ludford, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sudeley, L.

McNair, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

McNally, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Maddock, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Thurso, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Gallacher, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gilbert, L.

Alli, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Amos, B.

Goudie, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bach, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hacking, L.

Blease, L.

Hanworth, V.

Borrie, L.

Hardie, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hardy of Wath, L.

Chandos, V.

Hayman, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hoyle, L.

Crawley, B.

Hughes, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

David, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Diamond, L.

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

Dormand of Easington, L.

Dubs, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Levy, L.

1612

Lovell-Davis, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Sawyer, L.

Marsh, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Serota, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Sewel, L.

Mishcon, L.

Simon, V.

Molloy, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Monkswell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Thornton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Uddin, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Whitty, L.

Puttnam, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.54 p.m.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 60, line 9, at end insert—
(" . The parliamentary constituencies to which paragraph 1(c) applies are those determined by the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1995, or those Scottish parliamentary constituencies determined following a report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland under paragraph 3 of this Schedule, except a parliamentary constituency including either of those islands referred to in paragraph 1(a) and (b).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 60, leave out lines 15 to 17.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota)The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 9, I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 10 to 20.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No, 9:
Page 60, leave out lines 18 to 37 and insert—
("Redistribution of Scottish Parliamentary constituencies
3.—(l) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall keep under review the representation in the Scottish Parliament and shall submit to the Scottish Executive a report either—

(a) showing the constituencies into which they recommend that Scotland should be divided in order to give effect to the

1613
rules set out in Schedule 2 (subject to paragraph 7 thereof) to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 ("the 1986 Act") in so far as they apply to Scotland, or

(b) stating that, in the opinion of the Commission, no alteration is required to be made in order to give effect to the rules set out in Schedule 2 (subject to paragraph 7 thereof) to the 1986 Act.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 81 of this Act, the rules in Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act as they apply to Scotland shall have effect in relation to the redistribution of the parliamentary constituencies referred to in paragraph 1(c) above.
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, the provisions of sections 3, 5 and 6 of the 1986 Act shall, in so far as they apply to Scotland, have effect in relation to the reports and the workings of the Boundary Commission for Scotland's review of parliamentary constituencies for the Parliament.
(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), the provisions of section 4 of the 1986 Act shall have effect in relation to the draft of any Order in Council laid before the Parliament by the Scottish Executive for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland.
(5) References to the Secretary of State in the 1986 Act shall, for the purposes of this paragraph, be construed as references to the Scottish Executive and references to Parliament in the 1986 Act shall be construed as references to the Parliament.
(6) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall submit their first report under this paragraph to the Scottish Executive no later than 30th June 2003.
(7) In that report, the Commission shall also recommend any alteration in any of the regions which, in their opinion, is required to give effect to the rules in paragraph 7 below.
(8) If the Commission do not make any recommendation under sub-paragraph (7), they shall in the report state that, in their opinion, no such alteration is required.
(9) A report making a recommendation for an alteration in any region shall state the name by which the Commission recommend that the region should be known.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 20 not moved.]
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 60, leave out lines 38 to 43.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 60, line 46, leave out ("3(2)") and insert ("3(7)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lauderdale The Earl of Lauderdale moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 61, line 45, leave out from ("practicable") to end of line 46 and insert (", save to the extent required by rule 2A below.
2A. The electorates of the regions shall be such that the representation of predominantly rural regions in relation to the representation of predominantly urban regions is comparable, so far as practicable, to that achieved by the distribution of places in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, spoke of rural Scotland, it came to my mind that when I first came back to Scotland as a boy, having been born and reared abroad, I was struck by the fact that it is a rural country. It is not a country of towns; it is a country of countryside. Most of the people who live there are farmers or crofters. My amendment is drafted with that fact in mind.
The Scottish Constitutional Convention made a brave effort to anticipate the danger that the Scottish parliament would be dominated by the central belt from Glasgow to Edinburgh. I am afraid that its solution would not achieve what it seeks.
Perhaps I may consider the proposed Euroconstituencies one by one. Strathclyde East will range from Kilmarnock to East Kilbride and, if my eyesight is not misleading me, even to Strathaven, Stonehouse and Carluke. Strathclyde West will range from Paisley and Greenock to Dumbarton. Mid-Scotland will range from Stirling to St. Andrews and the constituency of the South of Scotland will range from Ayr to Dumfries, Peebles, Jedburgh, Hawick, Galashiels and Lauder, where I belong. All those towns are to some extent colonies either of Glasgow or of Edinburgh.
The problem is not a new one. It has been faced and, to a certain extent, solved over the years by CoSLA, the now well-established and respected Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Earlier we discussed the possibility of a second chamber for the Scottish parliament. I suggest that CoSLA is an obvious source of recruits for such a chamber, but be that as it may. That body maintains an agricultural forum—I believe that that is the term—and has devised a complicated system to make sure that the conurbations do not predominate.
The CoSLA arrangements do not hinge on the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies; let alone on those for the European Parliament, but on groupings of district council areas. The CoSLA constitution contains a distribution of seats weighted towards councils with a lower population density. Thus, the Orkneys, with a population of only 1,800, have three seats whereas the city of Glasgow (representing 616,430) is given only eight seats. In other words, there are more than 77,000 electors per seat.
I believe it would be impossible now to combine such a system with that already in the Bill. Had I thought of the CoSLA experience in time, I would have sought at Committee stage to rearrange the extra constituencies on a pattern that has proved so successful with CoSLA. At this stage of the Bill I am advised it would be far too complicated, if not also improper, to try to remake the whole machinery of the Bill to fit this pattern. So the best we can seriously hope for is that this will be taken on board by the Boundary Commission when the time comes. Only then, I submit, can Scotland's rural areas achieve the voice they deserve in the Scottish parliament, which, one hopes, will by then have earned sufficient prestige to enable a radical overhaul to be taken in hand. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend takes us to a future election—that is an important point to make—and right into an addendum, so to speak, to the rules which will govern the drawing up of the new regional boundaries. One of the slightly daft propositions in front of us is that the regions we shall use next May are the regions for the European elections, and yet the same Government who want to

1615
use these regions have abolished European elections using single member constituencies. Therefore the regions no longer have any validity, if they ever did have, as regards electing a Scottish parliament. However, as my noble friend said, he accepts it is too late to do anything about these regions now. He proposes one of the factors that the Boundary Commission should take into account when it decides on the regions after the first elections.
I think my noble friend has a good point in suggesting that the Boundary Commission should look to the practice of CoSLA. I do not think he has drafted his amendment so that the practice has to be the same as that of CoSLA, but he seeks to use the representation adopted by CoSLA to create a balance between the predominantly rural regions in Scotland and the urban regions. I believe that earlier the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, mentioned the fear felt by many in rural Scotland that they will be dominated by west/central Scotland in particular. My noble friend's amendment makes some sense because the regions as currently constituted are pretty disparate as regards their numbers. A figure of seven per region means that Glasgow, which is already over-represented, will receive the same number as, for example, the north-east region of Scotland which in terms of Glasgow is under-represented. In fact, in terms of Glasgow everywhere else in Scotland is under-represented. However, I do not wish to return to that argument.
If one were using the regional top-up to try to smooth out these inequalities from the first-past-the-post system, something along the lines of my noble friend's suggestion would be sensible. If the Government will not accept my noble friend's amendment, they should at least say that they will give other instructions to the Boundary Commission which would achieve the same kind of objective; namely, a rebalancing inside Scotland of the power base, as it were, between rural Scotland and urban Scotland.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, wonders never cease. I have heard two speeches from the Benches opposite praising CoSLA. I never thought I would live to see this day!
This amendment deals with the noble Earl's views of the proper representation that should be given to rural areas. We agree it is important that we have a parliament which represents the diversity of Scotland. However, we think that the electoral arrangements provided for in the Bill will provide that all areas of Scotland will be properly represented. That was one of the reasons we decided on the Euro constituency unit and the equal number of representatives from the individual Euro areas.
Amendment No. 23 deals with representatives in the parliament. However, instead of altering the number of electors per constituency, the noble Earl is seeking to alter the rules for the determination of the boundaries of electoral regions.
At present, paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 requires the electorate of a region to be as near to that of the other regions as is reasonably practicable, having regard to special geographical considerations. The amendment
1616
would replace the provision for special geographical considerations with a requirement for the representation of rural and urban regions to be comparable to the distribution of places in CoSLA. I understand that we are talking about the full convention meeting of CoSLA rather than any of its other institutions.
I understand that the noble Earl seeks to ensure that the special needs of rural areas are taken into account in determining the size and representation of electoral regions for the parliament. I believe that the approach which the Boundary Commission takes already achieves that and I do not believe that his amendment would improve the position.
Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I did not draft the present constitution of CoSLA but I drafted the third from present constitution. CoSLA goes through constitutions with as much speed and regularity as happens in France. As I understand it, representation on CoSLA is determined solely by the population of each local authority, with a minimum representation of three. This means that representation ranges from the smallest councils with three representatives each to the City of Glasgow with seven. Therefore, an authority with a population of about 50,000 has three representatives, whereas an authority such as Glasgow with a population of about 1 million has seven representatives. That is too great an imbalance and inequality to form an effective base for representation in the parliament.
No account is taken of the physical size or geography of the authority area. Thus Highland and Renfrewshire, with broadly similar populations, both have five representatives, despite Highland covering nearly 100 times the land area of Renfrewshire. That is all right for the kind of body that CoSLA is, but it is not a sound basis on which to base representation in the Scottish parliament. I do not wish to cast any aspersions on CoSLA's rules. They have been determined by that body to meet its own requirements and its own circumstances. However, they are not designed for the purposes of an electoral system.
Schedule 1 to the Bill already allows special geographical considerations to be taken into account by the Boundary Commission. That is right and proper. I believe that this provides sufficient safeguard that the special needs of rural areas can be considered. In Committee I explained that Highlands and Islands and the south of Scotland, two of the most rural areas of Scotland, with 21.1 per cent. of the electorate will have 24 per cent. of the seats in the Scottish parliament. That is a sound and reasonable outcome. If the amendment is accepted, and at any time in the future CoSLA for its own reasons changed its formula, that would have to be reflected in the electoral arrangements for the Scottish parliament. Clearly we cannot have the electoral arrangements for the Scottish parliament being determined by a third party. That would be totally wrong.
I hope the noble Earl recognises that rural Scotland will be well and properly represented in the parliament. It will certainly not be under-represented. As I said, taking the two most rural areas together, Highlands and Islands and the south of Scotland, we find that those two

1617
areas, which account for 21.1 per cent. of the population, obtain 24 per cent. of the representation. I believe that that is about right. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that response. To compare Highlands and Islands with the Borders is to compare an area of crofters with a farming area. Their interests, customs and mores are very different.
The Minister was rather surprised that I referred to CoSLA. In my remarks at Second Reading I suggested, and still believe, that CoSLA, which has proven political experience, might well have provided much valuable experience to the Scottish parliament had the noble Lord not earlier rejected the idea of the parliament one day having a second chamber. CoSLA might have been the source from which members of a second chamber would come. However, that is water under the bridge.
I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply. I am afraid that I must ask the House to decide for or against the amendment.
7.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 105.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Mancroft, L.

Burnham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Byford, B.

Milverton, L.

Cadman, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Courtown, E.

Northesk, E.

Cross, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renwick, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Rowallan, L. [Teller.]

Kingsland, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

Sempill, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ahmed, L.

Crawley, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Alli, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Amos, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Desai, L.

Bach, L.

Dholakia, L.

Balfour, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dubs, L.

Bath, M.

Evans of Watford, L.

Berkeley, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falkland, V.

Blease, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Borrie, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carlisle, E.

Gilbert, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Goodhart, L.

Chandos, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Goudie, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

1618

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Molloy, L.

Grenfell, L.

Monkswell, L.

Hacking, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Hamwee, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ogmore, L.

Hardie, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hayman, B.

Puttnam, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Razzall, L.

Hoyle, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hughes, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

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

Sawyer, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Serota, B.

Kintore, E.

Sewel, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Simon, V.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Levy, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McNally, L.

Thornton, B.

Maddock, B.

Thurso, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Meston, L.

Uddin, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Whitty, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.20 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Ordinary general elections]:
Lord Steel of Aikwood Lord Steel of Aikwood moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("() The date of the first ordinary election appointed by an order under subsection (1) may not coincide with the date of elections to local councils or to the European Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I introduce this probing amendment, perhaps I may say that, because of a missed train, I was not present to hear the Minister's response in which I understand he took great exception to remarks made by my noble friend Lady Linklater accusing the Government of reneging on the matter of the size of the parliament. I therefore wish to read into the record two sentences from the constitutional convention:
"The electoral system for Scotland's Parliament must have stability but it will, of course, be dependent on boundaries established for the Westminster and European Parliaments. These may be subject to alteration outwith the control of Scotland's Parliament and it will therefore be necessary to ensure that separate boundary reviews for the Parliament can be carried through with the purpose of maintaining the size of the Parliament and the integrity of the corrective effect of the additional members".
I believe that my noble friend was absolutely justified in using the word "reneging".
We are now dealing with the mechanics of the first election to the Scottish parliament. The purpose of Amendment No. 26 is to explore the Government's

1619
thinking on the date of the elections. The Government have decided that the elections to the Scottish parliament should be held on the first Thursday in May, coinciding with the local council elections. A month later there will be the elections to the European Parliament.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has been reported as being troubled that the two ballot paper system may cause confusion among the electorate. It is our contention that, if he is worried about a two ballot paper system, he should be more worried about three ballot papers being thrust into the hands of the electorate on the same day. I say as an aside that, as we have seen from the German election system, it is not necessary to have two ballot papers. The constituency members and the additional members could be on one ballot paper, as they are in Germany.
To have two ballot papers for the Scottish parliamentary election and to have the parliamentary and council elections on the same day seems to me an unnecessary burden on the voters faced with the new election system. Moreover, the election returning officers have themselves been reported several times as representing to the Scottish Office that the Government ought to think again about having the two elections on the same day.
I believe that CoSLA have made representations concerning the late determination of ward boundaries for some of the councils. If my amendment were carried and the council elections were held in June, say, instead of in May, not only would that simplify the Scottish parliament election, it would give the local boundary commission another month in which to conclude the determination of the wards and make it known to the local authorities in good time.
A further argument for not having the parliamentary and council elections on the same day is that, since the decision was made, there has been the selection of candidates by all parties. I believe it is true to say that all parties contesting the election have among their candidates for the Scottish parliament a number of local government councillors. I do not think that there is a rule about it, but, in most cases, it is assumed that, where a councillor finds himself or herself elected to the parliament, he or she will resign the council seat and a local government by-election will follow. It seems to me, therefore, that there is an added argument for holding the council elections a month later than normal in order to allow those who have been successful in the Scottish parliament election to resign and make way for someone else to stand in the council elections without causing the inconvenience and expense of a local government by-election.
For all those reasons, I have pleasure in moving this amendment, which I think is eminently full of good sense.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I support the demand made by my noble friend for different election dates. In doing so, I declare an interest in that I am considering becoming a candidate for a ward of the Clackmannanshire council, subject to the Boundary Commission deciding how to increase the seats on that
1620
council from 12 to 18 in a way which is acceptable to the people of Clackmannanshire. I must also declare an interest, which is probably well-known, that I am a Scottish parliamentary regional candidate for Mid-Scotland and Fife, albeit number five on the list, so I do not think the parliament need be too worried about my becoming a member. That draws out and personalises the argument about the confusion that I and the various electorates will have during the campaigning and subsequently in deciding how to vote.
I believe that it would be an advantage if the Scottish parliamentary elections and the local government elections were held on different dates.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, and to speak also to the amendments in my name, which are in similar terms to those debated on the first day of the Committee stage.
Noble Lords will recall that on that occasion I referred to a letter which Councillor Keith Geddes, the President of CoSLA, had written to the Secretary of State on this point. He stressed that there were a number of reasons why, on a cross-party basis, the members of CoSLA were against the idea that the first elections to the Scottish parliament should be on the same day as the local government elections. He said, among other things, that the issue was one of substantial concern within the local government community.
He listed four topics. One was the likelihood of considerable voter confusion, about which I shall say more in a moment. The second was the concern that, because a local government poll was being held on the same day as one for a new national government, voters would vote on national issues on both polls and not on local issues in the local government poll.
Thirdly, he instanced the enormous pressures that would be placed on political parties in resourcing two simultaneous elections. Linked to that is the good point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, that in some instances an individual may be standing for a Scottish parliamentary constituency in one area and a local government constituency in another. If that person won both seats, presumably he or she would immediately resign the local government seat and a by-election would have to be held, which does not seem to be very sensible. The fourth point that CoSLA made was that combined elections might disadvantage independent candidates, who are given certain voting rights in the system that has evolved.
Notwithstanding the considerable experience in local government of Councillor Geddes, his views, conveyed on behalf of all members of CoSLA, do not appear to have cut any ice with the Secretary of State. They do not seem to have done Mr. Geddes much good either, because, when I last read about him in newspaper reports, he seemed, far from being a hot tip for a likely Labour win in the election, to be having difficulty in being selected.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, mentioned that the Secretary of State was troubled that confusion might be caused. That is undoubtedly correct. Since this matter

1621
was last debated that has taken on a significance that I do not believe was addressed at that time. We understand that the Secretary of State is concerned that the same electorate who read and understood the voting system in the White Paper and voted wholeheartedly to support it may now have difficulty in understanding it when they get to the ballot box at the beginning of May next year.
To some extent the Government are not entirely to blame for this matter. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, will forgive me if I quote from an article in the Scotsman on 23rd September this year which referred to the approach by the Liberal Democrats to the question of where voters should place their second vote. It was reported:
"the Lib Dems yesterday revealed their plans to get Labour voters to give them their second vote in the parliamentary elections next May".
According to the authors of the article it was the clearest signal yet that the Lib Dems were preparing for a coalition with Labour and it was a strategy apparently to be deployed not only in Scottish parliamentary elections but also in the European Parliament.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the information from my Conservative friends is that we are much more likely to get the Conservatives' first and second votes.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I take what the noble Lord says with a pinch of salt. I do not wish to embarrass him but I recall that when I moved these amendments last time he did not support them. He said that I had a point but it was not a very good one. Obviously, his noble friend and Deputy Leader, thinks along lines similar to mine. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not dwell too much on his views at this time.
The article quotes a spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the chief executive—one Willie Rennie—who says:
"There is nothing to hide. People have used the first-past-the-post system's inadequacies to their advantage and we will do the same. This voting system isn't perfect, therefore we're going to work the system to the best advantage for the benefit of the voters".
I suspect that he is misquoted on that point and that it is for the benefit of the Liberal Democrat Party. There follows a quote from the Leader, Mr. Ashdown:
"I am happy for us to follow any policy that will win us votes".
Against that background it is hardly surprising that the Secretary of State is somewhat concerned about the possibility of confusion. As those of us in Scotland know, the answer to that confusion is to mount a £2 million campaign to educate the voters as to how the voting system will work. Having sought to explain the voting system to people in Scotland, both informally and at party meetings, it must be recognised that it is a complicated system. There can be little doubt that come next May, whatever campaign is mounted and whatever its cost, even if it is done with cross-party support as appears to be likely, a significant number of people will
1622
not fully understand when they turn up to vote why they have been given two voting papers and what they are meant to do with them.
If there is to be a third voting paper that day, as clearly there will be unless the Bill is amended, I believe that there is a substantial risk of confusion. That was the first of the items listed by Councillor Geddes in his letter to the Secretary of State. I understand that that was considered by the Government and they rejected the views of CoSLA. But in the light of the growing concern—here I join with the noble Lord, Lord Steel—I hope that the Government will be prepared to think again. This is not a matter of party political affiliation but of cross-party concern. I do not expect a positive response in the sense of a concession tonight. However, I expect a positive response in the form of a willingness on the part of Minister to go back and discuss the matter with the Secretary of State and other officials who are no doubt involved in planning the vote. If there is no change there is no doubt that there will be considerable confusion come 6th May.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as in the case of other amendments discussed today, this is a matter that we have already considered at length in Committee. A good number of the points that have been made have been discussed backwards and forwards in Committee. I doubt that I can add a great deal to what was said then but I shall try to deal with the points that have been raised by noble Lords. The Government understand the genuineness of the concerns that have been raised.
The voters in Scotland face three elections next year: to the parliament, local councils and the European Parliament. Local elections are due in May and the European elections in June. Noble Lords opposite appear still to believe that electors could and should turn out separately three times in a row in very quick succession to vote in each of these elections. We do not believe that to combine them in the way suggested is the best method. We believe that it is better to combine them with the local elections. I believe that the House accepts that it is unreasonable to have three separate elections in quick succession. That is more than likely to exhaust the patience of voters and undoubtedly turn-out would suffer. Do we really want to go in that direction? I believe that none of us wants that.
We came to the very firm conclusion that we should hold the elections to the new parliament on the same date as that set for local council elections, 6th May. In case there is any misunderstanding—I was not clear that the position was understood from the way some questions were framed—it is now not possible to defer the local elections other than by primary legislation. Subordinate legislation to change the date would have had to be placed before Parliament before February this year because local elections are fixed by statute.
Noble Lords have said that some local representatives have argued against this. I am very familiar with the letter from Councillor Geddes. I shall not deal with the points raised in that letter that have been enumerated by

1623
the noble and learned Lord. But the letter went on to argue for the postponement of local government elections with a preference for a year's delay until May 2000. That would mean that the new mainland councils would have held office since the elections in May 1995 and that the three islands councils would have held office since the elections in May 1994. They would therefore have had a six-year term of office. CoSLA itself recognised that that would be very difficult to defend.
It has been argued by local government representatives and others that that will be very confusing for voters. All I can say is that the Government do not believe that voters will find it difficult to distinguish between the two polls on the day. We do not believe that that argument does justice to voters who would be much more resentful at having to make different trips to the polling station in just over a month. I believe that we should be more concerned about that.
A working party has been set up composed of experienced electoral administrators and representatives of the parties with whom we are considering the detailed arrangements for next May. All that can be said about those discussions at the moment is that the Government have not encountered any insuperable problems.
Noble Lords have raised the question of an individual who may want to stand for both a local council and the parliament. All I can say is that it is up to the individual. There is nothing in law to prevent an individual standing or taking seats in both. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, asked specifically about the review of local wards. The Boundary Commission has submitted almost all of its reports by now. The work to implement the review is continuing apace. We understand that the electoral administrators are preparing registers based on the new boundaries. We admit that the deadlines are tight but we believe that they are achievable. The final approval of the commission's reports must be completed by 31st December and we believe that we shall be able to achieve that.
The House should bear in mind that combined polls are not unusual in England. For example, the 1997 General Election coincided with local elections and, as we said in Committee, as far as we know that worked perfectly well. There is another reason why there would be benefit in having local government elections on the same day as elections to the Scottish parliament. We firmly believe that that would markedly increase the turnout for the local elections. The turnout at local government elections, as we all know, is not as high as it should be. That is something about which we all agree.
Scottish local government needs to embark on its new relationship with the new Scottish parliament with a well-founded mandate. Therefore, plans for next May ought to be on those terms and should not be regarded as an administrative inconvenience. We do not believe that the alternative of combining the European elections with the parliament's elections would be any simpler than what we are doing. The next European elections of course will take place under a new voting system and might indeed be the cause of more confusion than would
1624
be the case if they were held at the same time as local government elections, when people are familiar with the system of voting for local government. I would therefore invite the noble Lord involved to withdraw that amendment.
Speaking more specifically about Amendments Nos. 20, 126 and 127, we understand that they are aimed at avoiding the possibility that at some future point the elections for the Scottish parliament could fall on the same date as the elections for local councils purely as a result of the operation of the two cycles. The arguments are much the same. The points I made on the other amendments apply equally to these amendments. We do not think there is a good enough reason for voters having to spend so much time going to the polling stations. If it is not unfair to say so, we do not honestly believe that there is any good reason to be so ideologically opposed to combined polls. There are times when these will be the most sensible way forward. In any event the commission chaired by Neil McIntosh is currently looking at the relationship between local government and the parliament; part of its remit is to make recommendations about the future electoral arrangements for local government. This Bill is therefore not the place to lay down long-term rules based on the present arrangements for local government. I would therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to reflect further on this suggestion. I fully accept that if changes involving local government elections had to be made, that would have to be done by primary legislation; that could be done in the body of this Bill by an amendment to that effect. The point upon which I invite the noble Baroness to reflect—and I am quite sure that she will agree to do so—is that, if my amendments are too prescriptive for the future (and I see the force of the argument she makes), there may be a contrary argument that Clause 2 as currently drafted is too prescriptive. There might then be some sense in writing some degree of flexibility into the Bill so that in the future, as experience is gained, the Scottish parliament would be competent to amend Clause 2 without having to bring the matter back here. I am not sure of the answer to this and I do not expect one at the moment. I simply ask for an undertaking to look at meeting our concerns half way. As far as the long term is concerned, it would be sensible to have a greater degree of flexibility than we have at the moment.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I would certainly like the Government to adopt the last suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. We do not want to get into an administrative straitjacket in this Bill if there is a chance, even as late as Third Reading, of looking again at the drafting of Clause 2.
I did not find any one of the noble Baroness's responses at all convincing. None of us is arguing that there should be three trips to the polling booth. In fact, if it were not for the criticisms of the European elections coming in June, we would not be moving this

1625
amendment at all. I do not think any one of us would be standing up and saying let us have two trips to the polls within a month. The fact is that we do have an election a month later and the question is whether it would be more sensible to have the local elections on that date rather than on the Scottish parliament date. For all the reasons already rehearsed I certainly think that the burden of the argument is in favour of doing that.
The noble Baroness referred to the fact that in the past local elections have been held in England and Wales on the same day as parliamentary elections. With great respect, those are two elections with which the electorate are already familiar. We are talking here about a new electoral system with which the electorate are not familiar. They have already been handed a double ballot paper and it seems to me unnecessary to go forward with a third one on the same day.
However, I take one bit of cheer from what the noble Baroness has said. Perhaps it can be confirmed that she was telling us that we need not worry about the ward boundaries question. I have come across a lot of nervousness among councils in the past few weeks about a risk that the Boundary Commission work would not be completed and that the local elections might therefore take place on the old boundaries. I hope that she is telling us tonight that there is no risk of that and that we can be certain that the work will be completed in time for the elections in May. I see her nodding so I will accept that that is so, in which case there is a little ray of light in the ministerial eye.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that if it had been thought sensible (as I think it should have been) to hold the local elections on the same day as the European elections, the effect could be to encourage the turn-out in both elections. The European election system in Scotland is a good deal simpler than is the Scottish parliament election. I would have thought that the argument was overwhelming in favour of having those two on the same day. If a decision had been made to do that, I accept of course that it would immediately involve a change to the primary legislation which could have been done in this Bill. Perhaps the moment has passed and the Government have decided this. I am certainly not going to press it.
I make one last point in response to something said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, about the use of the second vote in his great quotation from the Scotsman article. There is a serious point here which has nothing to do with which party we are talking about. It is my understanding that if Party A (whatever it is) in any region happens to win all the seats in the first-past-the-post system, there is no point in voting for Party A again in the regional list; it will have got its quota. That is why some of us will be arguing that the intelligent use of the second vote is something to be commended regardless of how it is done. Having said that, I certainly do not propose to press the amendment and I will allow the noble Baroness to continue.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I will try to mop up these last points. I am advised that the review of local wards is continuing and that we understand that the
1626
electoral administrators are preparing registers based on the new boundaries. The deadlines we know are tight, but the final approval of the commission's report must be completed by 31st December. We think that that can be achieved.
On the question which both noble Lords have put—and I hesitate to get into any legal discussion with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon—I am not at all sure that one could change the dates of local elections in Scotland in this Bill. I do not really want to cross legal swords with him on this. I am not sure that that is right. Perhaps we could both find out about it.
On the question of European elections, I will make the point briefly and not expand on it. The franchise for the local election and the Scottish parliament is absolutely identical. There is a slight difference with the European election. That is just one factor to take into account.
I return to the main point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. Clause 2(5) already gives the presiding officer flexibility in the date if there should turn out to be problems in the future. However, since the noble and learned Lord asks me to think about the point he has raised, I can do so without promising to return too constructively at Third Reading. I shall take the matter away and consider it.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Perhaps I might invite her to discuss with her officials whether a Bill which has as a Long Title,
"An Act to provide for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and Administration and other changes in the government of Scotland",
would not cover such amendment.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, "and for connected purposes".
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, as always I am indebted to my fellow Watsonian, my fellow son of the manse, even if he has the misfortune to support a different party from myself. Where there is a will there is a way. I invite the noble Baroness, her colleagues and officials to consider the matter. While I accept that there is flexibility in Clause 2(5), I suggest that there may not be sufficient flexibility.
Lord Steel of AikwoodMy Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 31 not moved.]
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Report stage begins again not before 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Pesticides: Taxation
7.51 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their intentions for taxing pesticides, and what will be the implications of such a tax for farming and the countryside.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must declare an interest as an Oxfordshire farmer who for some years was a farm manager with an agricultural diploma.
The agricultural industry is not a rich industry. In the past couple of years we have seen between a 2 and 4 per cent. net return on capital, and perhaps up to double that for tenants. In making a profit, the maintenance and improving of yield are of paramount importance in farming. Farmers have to make full use of crop husbandry methods, pesticides and technology to enhance yields. Since the early 1950s pesticides have played a significant role in preventing crop losses of about a quarter in wheat and about three-quarters in potatoes. More importantly, they have ensured that farmers can produce crops which are consistently of good quality, virtually blemish free, store well, keep for longer and are pest and disease free at the point of use. In real terms these benefits mean that the consumer is paying less than half for basic foods compared with the 1940s.
Pesticides enable us to be among the best and most efficient agricultural producers in the world and to compete successfully in the fierce world marketplace. The best way of lowering the use of pesticides is through the practice of integrated crop management (ICM). It is widely defined as a whole farm policy, aiming to provide the basis for efficient and profitable production which is economically viable and environmentally responsible. It integrates beneficial natural processes into modern farming practices using advanced technology and aims to minimise the environmental risks while conserving, enhancing and recreating that which is of environmental importance.
The idea of integrating beneficial natural processes into modern farming practices so that farming makes a more efficient use of its inputs (fertilisers, seeds, energy, and so on) makes good commercial sense. In addition, better targeting of inputs, careful field margin management and the better use of traditional practices such as crop rotation should bring environmental benefits. The key to a reduction in inputs is to reduce the need for them by adopting crop husbandry practices that conserve nutrients and reduce pest disease and weed attack.
ICM is not a new concept but is built around existing knowledge and sound husbandry practices. Although many of the practices are not new, they need to be regularly updated to include the findings of the latest research.
The industry is always looking at the cutting edge of technology. Some recent developments for reducing pesticide usage harness expensive high-tech spray equipment, sometimes coupled with GPS equipment. They deliver very accurate rates of pesticides as and where they are needed in the field. Capital tax write-off of 100 per cent. would enable many more farmers to use that expensive technology, thus producing worthwhile reductions in pesticides. We prefer to use as little pesticide as possible.
I hope that noble Lords are now gaining a picture of an industry which is forward thinking, responsive to the demands of its market and prepared to innovate. It is interesting to note that in the UK over the past 10 years, without the benefit of taxation, there was an overall decline in the use of pesticides by 23 per cent.; and this is continuing. It is predicted that there will be a fall in spending on pesticides by approximately £100 million over the next five years.
Moreover, the UK regulatory scheme operated by the Government is one of the best in the world. If it has flaws the correct way forward is to amend it, not to correct it by taxation. Will the Minister share with us any evidence that pesticide regulation is inadequate, and that, despite the excellent report from the Working Party on Pesticide Residues, our environment is at risk from them?
It is a most absurd situation where licences for certain chemicals are withdrawn in this country for certain foodstuffs, yet the same foodstuffs are grown abroad with the same chemicals and imported back into this country. Supermarkets use one set of standards for our British farmers and another for their own profits. Surely it is important to grow our food at home where we can carefully monitor pesticides used on it. If we were to use no pesticides and to go organic, research shows that a crop like wheat yields 40 per cent. less. Thus we would need an extra area the size of Wales in arable land to produce the same output as at present, or have to import 5 million tonnes of grain at an annual cost of about £0.5 billion—and that would wipe the smile off the Chancellor of the Exchequer's face, especially with the difficulties that he must be facing at present.
Now that the Ecotec study is complete, when will the Government publish it? And will they consider it alongside any other such studies? A pesticide tax will fall harder on the small farmer, the hill farmer and the northern farmer who are under severe financial pressure at present and who pay more for their pesticides than the southern medium to large concerns. Those farmers are less able to afford high cost research and development and high-tech spraying machinery which enables lower pesticide use.
Taxation is not a cost-effective method for the Government to reduce pesticide use. It will take about £5 million to set up and perhaps £0.5 million per year to collect and redistribute. And to whom will it be

1629
redistributed? Moreover, expenditure on pesticides is price inelastic: a given percentage rise in price does not result in the same percentage fall in usage. In a normal year it is calculated that a pesticide tax may reduce pesticide usage by 3 to 5 per cent., depending on the crop in question and the toxicity level of the pesticide. However, in an abnormal year, where farmers are faced with abnormal crop husbandry problems, pesticides will be used according to need, not tax. Even a high tax will not prevent a farmer from using pesticides to maintain his crop yield, for the loss of crop yield will almost certainly lead to the loss of profit on that crop.
The Government would be far more successful in reducing pesticide application were they to put money into research and training. Already existing research is being undertaken to improve in particular the methods and rates of application of pesticides, and to speed up the studies of new varieties of disease resistant crops, with training to increase the number of farmers and farm labourers confident in the use of a wide range of spray products and all the latest techniques. I sincerely believe that it is important to encourage regular training of all those in the industry, including those with grandfather rights.
The pesticide taxes imposed in Sweden failed to achieve their objective. Similar taxes in Denmark also failed and the Government there give back the tax in the form of a land tax rebate.
A pesticide tax will not be fiscally neutral. Some farmers will absorb its cost and simply try to make savings elsewhere. In order to do so, they may move back to the older, cheaper products which, being less specific, destroy or affect more bird and animal food and lead to pesticide resistance, which in turn leads to the later use of more potent pesticides. They may move from the use of, say, herbicides to mechanical weeding which disturbs the soil and leads to an increase in both nitrate leeching and slugs. They may have to reduce existing conservation activities, too. The farmers who cannot absorb the new tax costs, even if the Government intend it to be only a short-term tax, will likely go out of business.
A pesticide tax will lead to the increased importation of foodstuff from abroad from countries which do not have the same levels of control of pesticides. Will the Minister indicate how she proposes to control pesticide residues in imported produce? Is she prepared for the cost of food imports to rise above the current £14 billion per annum level? Finally, if the Government wish to raise moneys for research the fairest and easiest place to do so is in the highly profitable supermarkets. The tax would then be levied on UK and foreign foodstuffs. However, encouraging low-pesticide usage is best done by good practice, not taxation. Taxation on petrol has never curbed the use of the motor car.
8.2 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should declare an interest as being involved in agriculture. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House what stage the planned tax on pesticides has reached. Has it been decided to
1630
introduce such a tax and, if so, how and when will it operate? Indeed, one asks why it is envisaged in the first place. As my noble friend Lord Rotherwick said, agriculture is going through one of the worst depressions for some 50 years. The complaint is that the Government do not understand its problems. It is unbelievable that at such a time there should be a desire deliberately to add another burden of tax on agriculture.
Chemicals are an integral part of agriculture. The animal and vegetable kingdom is made up of chemicals. There is nothing wrong in using chemicals to supplement or to control agriculture, provided they are properly tested. When a person is ill he goes to a doctor and receives chemicals in the form of a pill. That is perfectly acceptable. Chemicals should be used subject to strict controls, and ours are some of the strictest. Farmers do not use chemicals unnecessarily because they are expensive. Their use is determined by need rather than by cost. An input tax would grossly and unfairly disadvantage British farmers over the European farmers who are our direct competitors.
Why are the Government proposing such a tax? I hope that it is not a sop to the Greens because over the past 10 years the sale of the active ingredients of pesticides has decreased by about 5 per cent. year on year. Are Her Majesty's Government entitled under European law to levy a tax which will unilaterally disadvantage one country—curiously enough, their own—against others? If the Government had unilaterally created a benefit one could imagine the row.
If the tax is levied, will farmers not be entitled to, and will they not, go to the Continent to purchase and import into this country similar chemicals but ones which carry no tax? Of course, all the instructions will be in a foreign language, which will cause a safety problem. Is it not a fact that those chemicals will be outside the strict regime of United Kingdom control?
If the Government are frightened by the effects of pesticides they should tighten up on the controls so as to exclude from use the doubtful rather than place an indiscriminate blanket tax on all, allowing the doubtful chemicals—if, indeed, there are any—still to be used and penalising those chemicals which are perfectly safe. This action, if taken, will have a damaging effect on farm incomes at a time when many farmers are struggling to stay in business. It will seriously curtail the capacity of British agriculture to compete favourably in the world market, because this Government will have deliberately increased the cost of their imports. I hope that the Government will not do it.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising this vital Question. I wish to ask the Government just three questions. First, how can they reconcile their oft-repeated order to British farmers to learn to compete in a free market, then introduce a tax which will make them less—indeed, non—competitive on the world stage, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ferrers? That would apply particularly to potato producers, and their processing industry, who did as they were told and compete in a free market.

1631
Secondly, will the Government explain how the tax would fit in with the farm insurance and integrated farm management schemes which the Government have encouraged and ensure minimum and safe usage of pesticides, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick? Thirdly, will the Minister spell out the effect of such a tax on the already stressed farming and rural scene? Perhaps she does not realise that it is stressed. If they are unable to do that, will the Government please publish a cost-benefit analysis before introducing the tax?
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to extract a satisfactory answer from her advisers before she replies.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, it is clear that the main impact of the introduction of a pesticide tax will be to put even more pressure on farm businesses. There are four principal areas in which agricultural practice will he affected by the imposition of a pesticide tax. I refer to pesticide use; cultural control methods; buying strategies; and changes to the business structure of the farming industry.
The majority of pesticides applied to crops give an essentially favourable cost ratio benefit; that is, that the financial return obtained from the crop following application clearly pays for the price of the material. The introduction of a tax could create a shift in that ratio. As it is difficult to know the yield and output price with great accuracy at the time of spraying, an increased pesticide cost may be small compared to the uncertainties of an output value.
For those reasons, most farmers will base their application decisions on the level of risk to their crops rather than the detailed cost benefit ratio calculations. As a result, depending on how the tax is structured, most farms' usage of pesticides will remain unchanged and decisions to spray will continue to be made on risk.
The United Kingdom is quite different from other member states in that farmers and growers in this country tend to demand a higher degree of technical support when purchasing pesticide products. In the majority of cases, farmers delegate product choice to a trained and qualified adviser. The willingness to take professional advice has led to the skilful use of pesticides and the use reductions have resulted from knowing whether or not to treat a crop or, in horticultural crops, for example, whether the threatening levels of disease and pests will materially challenge the marketability of the end fresh product. Unfortunately, many farm businesses may well feel obliged to do away with that advice in order to save costs.
Currently, a wide range of cultural control measures are already employed on farms. These are largely based on crop rotations, which have tended to minimise the endemic levels of pests, diseases and weeds on farms. It is often considered that variety choice is one area where farmers could materially affect pesticide usage by selecting those varieties with high levels of disease and pest resistance. However, I contend that although agronomic characteristics are important to the grower yield, quality and consumer acceptance are the key
1632
parameters when choosing varieties. In horticulture in particular, if there is no demand for the variety it will not be grown.
While I agree that all reasonable steps should be taken to reduce risks from pesticides both to the environment, user and consumer, I remain to be convinced that a tax would be the most effective or sustainable method of achieving this objective.
I believe that sustainable risk reduction can be achieved by the wider adoption of integrated crop management techniques and improved application technologies. Improved decision-making and information technologies will help growers focus on optimised use, using as little pesticides as possible but as much as is necessary to sustain their farm business and the long-term agronomic potential of their land. I believe that that is the way forward and I hope that the Government will think again about imposing a tax.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rotherwick on raising this important subject. It is certainly an important subject for the apple and pear growers in our country. I declare a modest interest as president-elect of the Murden Fruit Growers Society. That has taken up quite a proportion of my three minutes.
But in what I might call in this context the residue, I would like to make the point that the apple and pear growers of this country are already intolerably discriminated against vis-à-vis their competitors on the Continent of Europe and further afield overseas. Not only is that due to the familiar undue zeal in this country with which we seem to permit, or even encourage, Brussels legislation to be interpreted against the interests of our producers, but also—to take one example—we have the problem with the growth regulator, Chlormaquat, which is freely applied to Dutch and Belgian pears on the tree, which are then happily exported to this country. Naturally enough, no one complains about seeing them on the shelves, beautiful in shape and size, but UK producers are forbidden to use it and in fact commit a statutory offence if they do so.
Now, we have this proposal—I hope not yet endorsed or blessed by the Department of the Environment, or the Ministry of Agriculture—to impose a tax on the purchase of certain pesticides. That is a layer of control over and above that exercised by, and vested in, the PSD. We all agree and accept that the PSD should be able to withhold a licence from a pesticide unless it is proved to be safe. Indeed, it has a duty to withhold it. But there is no lesser duty on that body to grant a licence if it is proved to be safe. Everyone understands that. I submit to your Lordships that that is safe and sufficient protection for the consumer.
We do not need any more restraint in the shape of taxation on the freedom of the British grower to meet foreign competition, and for this reason, which needs to be understood. Specific, licensed pesticides are so vital to fruit growers that their use is not optional: it is a fixed cost in all but name. That is a point which has already been made by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick and

1633
other noble Lords who have spoken this evening. If profitability is to be maintained, people will go on using the same amount of pesticide unless and until the rate of taxation becomes absolutely penal. In those circumstances the rate of use of pesticides will decline only because the grower has gone out of business. That is not what we want. I very much hope that this idea of a tax will be scotched here and now.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for tabling this Question, which is opportune. I have an interest to declare, but rather less of one now because I am more or less a retired farmer.
I would like to say a little more about what has happened in Denmark and Sweden as regards the tax. In Denmark farmers got back a great deal of the money through the remission of other taxes in place of the pesticide tax. It has not done any good so far, although I believe that they are trying to increase the tax. It will probably not be sufficient to have the effect of reducing the pesticide used.
In Sweden the one success was a modest levy of tax to achieve best practice, which did some good. We already do that because the agro-chemical industry pays for approvals. In addition, £8 million per annum is effectively paid by farmers when they buy agro-chemicals.
The general thinking is that it would need a tax of over 100 per cent. to stop or greatly reduce the use of pesticides. That level of tax must be recognised as unconscionable, particularly in the circumstances of British agriculture at the moment. A lower tax would have a significant effect on the costs to the industry and not reduce the use of pesticides. It would not help the environment, farming or anyone else.
This is a delicate subject. There are media and special interest groups who put about exaggerated points of view on the subject which are extremely dangerous. I do not believe we want to go too far along the road of listening to that when it is not justified or right. I hope that Ministers will be careful not to be led astray by that hype. I am sure that they will have full regard to the facts. I ask them in particular to promote those facts and to guide the public perception. We do not want to go too far down the organic road. It could be extremely expensive and not well justified. And I am not so sure that food would be any safer in doing so.
8.19 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I thank my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for introducing this debate and for warning me that he was going to have a go at the organic idea. So perhaps I may be allowed to spend a moment on that subject. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton has also spoken on those lines.
I believe that it is 50 years since the requirement for intensive feeding started at the end of the war. The organic agenda has continued throughout that time. It
1634
has influenced general farming. The extensive growth in the methods of farming have been a reflection of that work to some extent.
My noble friend Lord Rotherwick mentioned ICM, which is a system developed by the agrochemical industry in direct response to the organic agenda. There is a need for lower use of pesticides and to move towards more sustainable farming. That is vitally important.
The CAP has encouraged indiscriminate use of chemicals and the CAP is quite unsustainable. I suggest that organic farming is sustainable. It is a specialised and demanding form of farming which needs animals to provide organic fertiliser. It is a whole farm system, and not, for example, just for a specialist cereal farmer. It may be called all muck and magic but it is a skilled and sensitive form of farming not to be taken lightly.
There has been a suggestion that we should go organic. There is no question of the whole of England or the whole of the agricultural world going organic in the UK, especially when you consider that at the moment 0.3 per cent. of agricultural land is converted to organic farming, which is about 70,000 hectares. The existing target is a modest 10 per cent., and that is in the long term.
The demand for organic food is there and is unfulfilled. Sixty per cent. of UK sales are imported from Germany and Denmark. Meanwhile, the EU support in Austria, for instance, covers 10 per cent. of its land which is converted to organic farming, compared to this country with 0.3 per cent. The public are calling for cleaner food and less pesticides, especially in the diet of our children and for the protection of wildlife. We must respond to that demand.
If I thought that a pesticide tax would reduce its use I would support it but, as its use will be indiscriminate, I doubt that it will be of any value at all. We need to reduce the use of pesticides—and perhaps ICM is one of the methods—but such a tax will be self-defeating. The large farmer will use modern techniques, selective spreading and economical use of pesticides. The tax would hardly affect him, but it would affect the small farmer with his unsophisticated machinery, cheap imports and increased pollution. It would be far better to limit the use of pesticides—as already exemplified by the regulations—or the use of organophosphates by specifying the number and rate of applications.
If the object is to raise money it is also self-defeating. It will send the small farmers to the wall for some petty return while the EU spends £30 billion a year in farm support. The CLA calls for targeted campaigns in specific areas and training for farmers. That seems to me to be the most profitable approach. I support my noble friend Lord Rotherwick.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I too would thank my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for introducing this debate. I declare an interest as a tenant farmer.
Pesticides have been accused of many things, including killing off birdlife, affecting food safety and destroying waterways. But they are an essential tool for

1635
the farmer because they keep weeds under control, make for ease of cropping and do a more efficient job of keeping the soil clean than ploughing and cultivating, with the resultant soil erosion.
Farmers are keeping a close eye on the usage of pesticides because they are the custodians of the country and they want to see wildlife abound. We have seen a huge decline in their use and we have few statistics to tell us that there are traces to be found in the food that we eat. So why have a tax at all? Is it to raise money or to cut usage? If it is to cut usage, if it is to work it will have to be at a high rate, perhaps 100 per cent. If it is to raise money, as the current pesticides bill is £540 million, at 100 per cent. it will certainly raise an enormous amount of money. Can farming survive another cost of this magnitude?
Are we in the UK to feed ourselves or are we to rely on Europe and the rest of the world to do so? Surely our number one priority is to become self-sufficient. Is the tax to be greater on the toxic chemicals needed to grow potatoes etc. and less on the more benign chemicals such as those to kill buttercups? If contracts are lost to Europe for food as a result of increased costs, our imports will increase and thus our balance of payments will get worse. Potatoes, for instance, require the most toxic of all chemicals. A 100 per cent. tax would add 1.35p per pound to the price, or 7 per cent. of the selling price. As deals are lost for 0.5p per pound, it can be clearly seen that even at 35 per cent. tax contracts will be lost.
This is an ill thought out tax proposal. Do not kill off farmers already in trouble with overburdensome taxes. Encourage them and the agrochemical industry to find cleaner pesticides and to lower rates of usage so that the guardians of the countryside, the farmers, can prosper and this country can stay self-sufficient and become even more eco-friendly.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the subject is one to which we need to pay close attention. Many other noble Lords have mentioned the press and the propaganda put out by various bodies with genuine worry but little practical knowledge of farming and the results of their protestations. It is true that things have changed greatly. No one here is as old as I am, but I remember clearly the stubble fields in Aberdeenshire before the war and the lovely smell of wild mint. It was wholly delightful, and I dare say good for birds and nice for young fellows who were smelling it. It was not much good for farming, but it was a factor.
There is no doubt that farming has changed the habitat of a great many birds. I say birds because one of the chief protagonists of the tax is the RSPB. With the sowing of winter crops you never have any stubble. You harvest the crop and then you go straight in with the plough for the next crop. That has much more to do with the reduction in the bird population than the use of pesticides.
I admit that in the past I have had friends who blanket-spray crops all over their farms to knock off something in the hope of a penny or two more profit.
1636
I also have friends who leave a spray width right round their fields to encourage the wildlife next to the hedges. That does a great deal of good.
As several noble Lords have pointed out, the use of pesticides is already dropping. The more knowledge that is gained, the less chemicals and pesticides are used. Knowledge has greatly advanced. If I may tell an old story, I asked my grieve once—I am talking about 50 years ago—whether he was sure that he was following the safety instructions for the men operating the sprayer. He said, "Oh yes, when they are cleaning the nozzles I tell them to blow and not to suck". We have advanced considerably since then and we are now taking greater care. The people most in danger are the operators, and farmers and producers of chemicals are stepping up the training of people using the equipment. That is very important indeed.
I have the latest figures from the college of experiments—they will not be news to noble Lords who have spoken, but they may be news to the noble Baroness—which give the yield reduction through lack of use of fungicides and plant growth regulators. On winter wheat the reduction in yield was 2.30 tonnes per hectare, which is an enormous amount. That was only fungicide and did not take into account that you had not used any herbicides to keep the weeds down. On winter barley it was 1.5 tonnes per hectare. On spring barley it was more than 1.5 tonnes per hectare. Farming cannot survive if farmers have to take that kind of loss. If farming is taxed at that rate, it becomes impossible. The tax is far too high to have any effect. Therefore, either you tax with a small tax and infuriate people or you tax with a big tax and ruin them. Neither is particularly helpful either to farming or to the general population. Even the RSPB is a little worried about farmers.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that speeches should be limited to three minutes. He is now in his fifth minute.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I shall sit down in a moment. There are 20 minutes to go and I shall sit down in one minute. The closing speakers normally have a little longer than the other speakers.
Even the RSPB has said that a tax should not be imposed just now, with farming in a bad way. If it is saying that, the reason for imposing a tax does not come into it at all.
I shall close by quoting the CLA, which says what some people have said already:
"Further support should be given to promoting good practice and to training operators in good practice. This is likely to be a far more effective way of ensuring responsible use of pesticides than any general tax on such inputs".
8.31 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for giving us the opportunity to discuss, albeit briefly, this vital matter.
We should recognise that the imposition of any form of taxation not only raises revenue but has an impact upon the behaviour of those being taxed. It is the duty

1637
of government to make sure that when economic instruments are used directly to influence behaviour the full consequences of imposing that taxation are both intended and equitable.
My noble friends have pointed out this evening with considerable force and eloquence that a pesticides tax could fall into a trap of double jeopardy. It could have an impact which is both unintended and inequitable. What the Government must consider after this debate is whether they should continue with their consideration of an extra input tax at all in the face of the arguments raised by my noble friends and others. How many bankruptcies, I wonder, are the Government prepared to see as the price they are ready to pay for introducing such a tax at this time?
I note, for example, that my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Rowallan pointed out the disastrous impact which such a tax would have on the potato processing industry in this country. My noble friends have argued most persuasively that a pesticides tax would undermine existing regulatory procedures, reduce the competitiveness of UK agriculture and horticulture at a most unfortunate moment and ignore the fact that two-thirds of any pollution is not caused by these industries at all.
Yesterday my noble friend Lady Anelay visited the Marden Top Fruit Show, which was mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. She was most impressed to see the high quality of our fruit products and by the measures which our growers already take to avoid the unnecessary use of pesticides. Farmers and growers use pesticides to protect their crops from insect attacks and diseases. Pesticides allow producers to ensure that we have a consistent supply of high quality food. It is in the interests of every farmer and grower to use pesticides responsibly and safely. They make the valid point that, as efficient business operators, they do not waste money on expensive pesticide products by overuse or misuse. It simply is not in their interests to do so.
Do the Government seriously believe that there is a significant overuse of pesticides in this country? If so, when will they lay in the Library of this House the proof of that so that all noble Lords may peruse it?
The farmers and growers whom I have met on my visits to agricultural shows throughout the length and breadth of the country this summer all ask one fundamental question of the Government. Why penalise our farmers and growers with a tax which will make the playing ground of European and international competition even more uneven and unfair for our producers? Why open the floodgates to foreign, cheaper imports even further at the risk of encouraging the purchase of goods which are not always grown as safely or to the same high quality as our own? I look forward to hearing the response of the noble Baroness the Minister.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in responding to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord
1638
Rotherwick, I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the Government's position on the possible taxing of pesticides.
We made clear in our manifesto that what governments choose to tax sends clear signals about the economic activities that they believe should be encouraged or discouraged. Our starting point is that environmental pollution is to be discouraged. No noble Lord who has spoken tonight would disagree with that. Subsequently, the Government have made clear their general intentions in respect of environmental taxation in the statement of intent and are exploring the scope for using the tax system to deliver environmental objectives, often in combination with other measures.
However, just because we may consider that taxing "bads" rather than "goods" is inherently preferable does not mean that any such taxes should be imposed without very careful consideration. Here I refer to the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord Wise, of whether taxes are the best way of achieving the objectives and whether they satisfy the fundamental tests of good taxation; that is, that they should be well designed to meet objectives without undesirable side-effects; keep deadweight compliance costs to a minimum; have an acceptable distributional impact; and we must have regard to the implications for international competitiveness.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to the needs of fruit growers. My noble friend Lord Hoyle was listening to the interests of that industry yesterday. What I should like to stress beyond doubt is that, as regards taxing pesticides, no decision has been made. Decisions on such issues are a matter for the Chancellor. However, I should like to explain the background to our interest before responding to the specific points and considering some of the implications which an instrument could have for the countryside and farming.
We are determined that consideration of the case for any instrument is as well informed as possible. That point was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. In the context of listening to the noble Lord's reference to factors that could affect the bird population, perhaps I may say that my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone had intended to take part in the debate. Unfortunately, there has been a problem with the aeroplane on which she was due to return and she was not able to get back in time. I found the noble Lord's comments very interesting but have enough of a rural background myself to remember that along with the mint was often a lot of ragwort in other fields close by.
We issued a discussion document on the potential pesticides instrument in the context of water pollution and commissioned a significant amount of research to examine the potential role. In this context perhaps I may answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. The Ecotec Report will be published when its methods and findings have been fully considered. It is the Government's policy generally to make available research work for public consideration.

1639
All relevant government departments have been involved in steering that work and the consultants have been asked specifically to consult as closely as possible with the main interested parties, including the NFU and the British Agrochemicals Association.
There is a growing body of evidence which suggests that pesticides can have harmful effects on wildlife and terrestrial and aquatic eco-systems. Although the current statutory approval system ensures that no products pose "unacceptable risks", residual risks remain. Given that uncertainty, governments have adopted a precautionary approach and developed a pesticides minimisation policy to limit their use to the absolute minimum necessary for the effective control of pesticides compatible with the protection of human health and the environment. Several noble Lords referred to that. That long-standing policy has therefore been to minimise the use and impact of pesticides.
Pesticides are used because of the benefits they bring in terms of pest control—noble Lords, with a variety of detailed knowledge, have spoken of that—and in the case of agriculture to increase the quality and yield of crops. As other noble Lords have said, farmers believe they are economically better off using them. However, there is reason to believe that pesticides are being over-used and that alternative approaches are available. The Government wish to investigate the scope for such action. Economic instruments are potentially capable of securing the best balance between minimising costs to producers and maximising environmental benefits, while complementing existing policy mechanisms. Such instruments could secure reductions in pesticide use. I note the points made by several speakers this evening on the way in which the industry itself is seeking to reduce the use of pesticides and to use them more efficiently and effectively.
It is clear that while the introduction of an economic instrument might generally be welcomed by those looking solely from an environmental point of view, such a prospect is regarded as a threat by others, particularly by the farming community and those in the agrochemical industries. We are looking carefully at the possible impact on all those involved in the manufacture, sale and use of pesticides. However, it is accepted that farming is one of the sectors most likely to be affected. As the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, said, this is a key concern. I assure him that we are examining it in considerable detail and are taking into account the complex interactions between the response to an instrument of manufacturers, distributors, food retailers and consumers, as well as the characteristics of the farms such as crop type and current pesticide usage. Noble Lords have spoken with knowledge and in detail about aspects of farming in that context.
It seems clear that if a tax were to be introduced, then in the short-term, before farmers take steps to reduce use, income and profits could be adversely affected. Detailed examination of ways of limiting adverse effects and encouraging positive reactions to an instrument are particularly important in this context.
1640
The noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, drew attention to what is happening in other countries. That is an important factor to be taken into account during this consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, somewhat despairingly, as did another noble Lord who spoke, that he was not sure whether we recognised the problems facing sections of the farming industry. We take seriously the difficulties that have been experienced recently by parts of the farming industry. We have taken action. For example, we have provided £85 million of agrimonetary compensation and spent £950 million in 1997–98 on BSE-related measures.
However, the rural economy is now less dependent on agriculture and its traditional industries than it once was, with less than 2 per cent. of the workforce employed in agriculture. Therefore, we are working also to address the needs of rural communities as a whole and are working out how best to build the rural dimension into all aspects of wider policy-making. The current position in the farming industry makes that all the more important.
To sum up, we are looking at the possible use of an economic instrument consistent with our pesticide minimisation policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, said and as the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, demonstrated, in considering those factors it is clear that there are a range of views within the industry which are not always totally in agreement with each other. Any instrument would be only one element additional to complementary measures or indeed an expansion of current measures; for example, training and advice to farmers and agricultural workers, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, which could also be introduced.
I stress yet again that no decisions have been made. Before taking any decisions we shall weigh up all the relevant factors, including the results of the research which we have commissioned, the responses to the earlier discussion paper and the points raised this evening.
There may be other detailed questions to which I have been unable to reply. I shall seek to write to noble Lords, for example, with details on the points raised about the potential for an impact on the potato industry. My friends in the farming community in Lancashire would forgive me not at all were I to do any less.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.46 to 8.51 p.m.]

Scotland Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 3 [Extraordinary general elections]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 2, line 30, leave out from ("dissolved") to (", or") in line 33.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a fairly simple amendment. On page 2 of the Bill there is a provision involving a qualified majority of members of the

1641
Scottish parliament, if the parliament is to be dissolved. That qualified majority is,
"two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament".
It is not the actual number of people who are present and vote, but two-thirds of the number of seats. It is therefore quite a vigorous hurdle to be overcome. Regardless of whether anybody is sick or dead, they will be counted. I remind the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench that accusations like that were put against the 40 per cent. in 1979. It appears to me that the Government are proposing a rule with the same kind of problems attached to it.
But that is not my real problem. Time and again during the debates on referendums I suggested that we ought to write into legislation qualifications in relation to the majority and qualifications linking the size of the majority to the turn-out. Time and again I was told that a simple majority was enough. Some of the issues I was addressing in the referendum Bills were of greater importance than whether or not the Scottish parliament should be dissolved and an election held. The Scottish devolution referendum itself was of greater importance, as was the Welsh one. If there had been any qualification, the Welsh one would not have been won. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Newall suggested that the Welsh one was only won because the Government unfairly backed one side to the disadvantage of the other; that it was not a fair referendum. There was a referendum on London voting and we are looking forward—if that is the right word—to a referendum on a voting system for the other place and perhaps a referendum for the euro.
In all of those I contended, and will contend in the ones to come, that a qualified majority for such major constitutional change is essential. Judging by the course so far, the Government will tell me that one is enough. My simple question is: if one is enough to make dramatic changes to the constitution of our country, why is one not enough to dissolve the Scottish parliament? I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, there are very few places in this Bill where reference is made to a qualified majority—the two-thirds majority. Those situations arise where we consider it to be appropriate that a procedure be built in which effectively puts the decision to be made beyond the reach of an individual party. The three places where that occurs—it is right that it occurs in those places—are the removal of the Auditor-General at Clause 65; the removal of a judge at Clause 90 and the dissolution of the parliament.
I touched earlier on why we adopted the two-thirds majority for the dissolution of the parliament. We start from a proposition that, unlike the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish parliament should have a fixed term; that the ability to call an election by creating a dissolution should not rest with the Executive or with a simple majority of the parliament. It is to get away from the idea that the timing of an election is something which could be engineered in order to create party
1642
advantage. We therefore adopted a procedure that tries—and I believe succeeds—to remove that possibility.
In too many cases, particularly an administration with a small majority, there is temptation to use the dissolution as a political, electoral gambit. As I said, all the way through the argument has been that it should be a fixed-term parliament thus removing that opportunity. Dissolution therefore can only be achieved through a two-thirds majority, clearly in a situation where there was widespread recognition within the parliament that the stage had been reached where there was no likelihood of a stable administration being formed.
In the past the argument has been advanced—it has not been used tonight—that the two-thirds majority would result in a lame duck administration; that is, an administration that had lost its authority but was nevertheless continuing. In other words, there is a fear that a Motion may be moved to secure a dissolution and it obtains a majority of between 15 per cent. and two-thirds, clearly indicating that the administration has lost the confidence of the parliament, but it is not sufficiently high to obtain dissolution. That is a fear that is unwarranted. I suspect that what would happen in those cases is that there would be a straight Motion of no confidence in the Scottish Executive of the day; the Executive would be got rid of in that way and there would be a 28-day period for the appointment of a new one. Of course, in those circumstances, if a new Executive is not appointed, there is an automatic dissolution. That again is a further safeguard.
The whole purpose of this provision is to ensure that a party with a majority of more than 50 per cent. cannot use the timing of a dissolution for party advantage. Among those who considered the matter—certainly, among members of the Scottish Constitutional Convention—there was the strong view that it ought to be a fixed parliament so that we can get away from that possible abuse. On that basis, I hope that I have explained satisfactorily to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, why we are going down that road and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the Minister for some of those sentences. When he was explaining what might happen if the parliament failed to reach a two-thirds majority and a lame duck administration rumbled on, trying to find an acceptable chief minister, that reminded me of what has been happening in Italy in the past few weeks. I do not think that that is a good omen for the Scottish parliament.
The Minister said that a "qualified majority" is specified in only a few places in the Bill. I would say that once is enough. However, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that among the reasons for including such a provision is to put the dissolution of the parliament—in other words, the result of the vote—beyond the reach of an individual party. I am also grateful for the fact that it should be a qualified majority of the whole membership. To me, that seems akin to the whole electorate—not just those members of the Scottish parliament who turn up and vote. I am equally

1643
grateful to the Minister for saying that a qualified majority is needed to prevent the provision being engineered to create party advantage. I cannot think of a better explanation of why the Government think that one is enough for a referendum other than that they can engineer it for party advantage. I am grateful for those phrases and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Clause 4 [Candidates]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("or individual candidates").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should point out that the key amendment in this group is Amendment No. 44 and that the others are consequential. Your Lordships know that the Scottish parliament is to be elected on a two-tier system. The first vote is a first-past-the-post vote and the second vote is a top-up vote. The idea of the top-up vote is to right the wrong, so to speak, that may have been created in the proportionality of the outcome of the first-past-the-post vote. That is the principle of the top-up membership. It is to right any imbalance, any lack of proportionality, that may have resulted from the first-past-the-post vote.
The real question is: why is it not being done on the basis of the first-past-the-post vote? Why is it being done on the basis of a second vote? After all, the proportionality of the second vote may differ from the proportionality of the first vote. The net result might be that the composition of the parliament is further away from proportionality than was the first-past-the-post vote. It seems entirely illogical for the Government to say that the top-up seats ought to be determined by a second vote.
I have done a simple calculation based on voting patterns in Glasgow because I understand that these matters concern the Labour Party. If Labour voters in Glasgow decide to give their first vote to the Labour Party—there is plenty of evidence that this is what they are thinking—and their second vote "for Scotland"—that is how it will be put to them; that is, for the Scottish National Party—I do not think that that is the same, but never mind. That is the way that this will be portrayed. The net result, if it succeeded in part, would be that the Scottish National Party would gain a disproportionate number of the top-up seats and the balance from the first-past-the-post vote would be more skewed. In fact, it would be heavily skewed if, say, slightly fewer than half of all Labour voters decided to vote SNP in the second ballot. I must advise the Liberal Democrats that they would then lose the one seat that they might have gained in Glasgow because the SNP would have mopped up those votes. The Conservatives would manage to squeeze in, in sixth place. The Labour Party would not gain any seats in the second vote whereas it would otherwise probably gain one or two seats if the votes were the same in the second vote as in the first.
The real problem is that if the votes are not the same in the second vote as in the first, greater distortion could be caused. I am not in favour of PR, but those who are ought to be concerned about their own system. They should try to be mathematically literate and to work out some of the possible consequences.
This is not just my worry; it goes deep into the heart of the Government. I have with me the Scotsman for Monday 5th October which shows Mr. Donald Dewar to be most concerned about this. The article states:
"Donald Dewar yesterday admitted that Labour may suffer because of voter confusion"—
I think that the Scotsman is wrong to think that there will be confusion—
"over the proportional representation element of next year's Scottish parliament elections.
He said electors may choose to vote for another party in the second vote".
So, the electors are "confused" yet they are to choose; I think that they will know what they are doing. I repeat that Mr. Dewar is reported as saying,
"electors may choose to vote for another party in the second vote for the 'top-up' list candidates when they have backed a Labour candidate in their first constituency votes.
Speaking on the BBC Scotland's "Eye to Eye" programme, Mr. Dewar said: 'I am worried that people will not understand what is … quite a complicated and fundamental shift in the way you cast votes—"'.
Donald, you are wrong. They will understand. I keep saying that because I do not believe that the electorate will not understand the PR system. They will understand it far too well for the Labour party and they will use it extremely efficiently just as they have used tactical voting—to my cost, if I may say so.
Perhaps I may continue to quote what Mr. Dewar said on that programme:
"'At the moment you have one vote for your first choice. My concern is that when people are presented with two ballot papers they may cast their vote for, let's say, the Labour Party.
'When they come to the party preference, and there is lots of evidence for this in the opinion polls, they may see that as a second-best choice and vote for another party.
'The second ballot is the most important because it is the one that produces the percentage of the total vote, which is then used to ensure that you get the same percentage in parliament'".
Exactly.
If it is the percentage in the parliament that matters and righting any perceived lack of proportionality from the first-past-the-post votes, the inescapable logic is that the top-up seats should be derived from the first votes. That is what my amendment seeks to do.
The first total of all the first votes would be counted—for the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Nationalists and the Conservatives—the d'Hondt principle would be applied and then, on the basis of that first vote, the top-up would be calculated. Therefore the top-up—this is not what I desire particularly, but it is what the PR people want—would make sure that people's first votes are counted properly and that the lack of proportionality coming from first-past-the-post would be corrected.
We now know that the Government will try to run a £2 million campaign to educate people. In my submission, if they do that they are even more likely to bring about the kind of scenario I suggest, unless of course they intend to educate people to vote Labour on both tickets. However, I hope they will not be quite as blatant as that. My principal contention as regards this amendment is that we are in severe danger of not following through the logic of the whole principle on which an additional member system is based. The logic of it is to correct any lack of proportionality arising from the first vote. Therefore in my submission that ought to be done on the first vote.
A further reason for not having a second vote is that it would prevent the alter ego parties. I think it is a good deal less likely now than in the summer that the Labour Party will divide itself into Labour and Co-operative. I think it will be far too worried about losing first-past-the-post seats to the Scottish Nationalists and it will need all its second votes. However, I know that I cannot win on that argument because everyone tells me I should attack that problem in the Registration of Political Parties Bill. I shall do so and I look forward to receiving support from those people who have advised me to seek a solution to this difficulty in the Registration of Political Parties Bill. If the Government will not accept changes to the Registration of Political Parties Bill, having no second vote and the top-up on the first vote will do the job perfectly well. The consequence is, of course, that individual candidates will go. However, that concept is such a sop. Anyone with any knowledge of how politics work will know that the chance of an individual candidate obtaining enough votes in a poll over a large region to gain even the seventh position is about as remote as the Government offering me a job on their Front Bench. It just will not happen. It is impossible.
In Committee I said that this whole idea was designed to try to keep Peter Peacock happy. He obviously got out his pocket calculator and worked out that it would not keep him happy because he would not obtain any position. Therefore he joined the Labour Party to see whether he could get a position on the list there. The one person the Government might have prayed in aid as an Independent who might have succeeded—there are many "mights" in that—has decided that he would not succeed and he has decided to join one of the political parties.
I understand that people will complain that I am trying to get rid of individual candidates and they will say that that is dreadful. But, frankly, I am being thoroughly and totally realistic. If an individual candidate has clout, the chances are that clout may just win him a first-past-the-post seat in a small geographical area. However, I do not believe that an individual candidate—perhaps with the exception of Mr. Sean Connery—could conceivably obtain enough votes over a whole region to win. It depends on the region, but he would need about 12, 13, 14 or 15 per cent. of the vote. That is the kind of percentage one needs to obtain the seventh position. That may not sound much, but across a whole region it adds up to a great many votes.
Regrettable as it may be, the idea that an Independent would be able to run successfully in a regional list is Cloud-cuckoo-land.
My amendment gets round what I think is quite a serious problem which we shall discuss shortly; namely, that currently the only people who will have their name on the second ballot paper will be the Independents. However, as I said, we shall discuss that matter later. The prime reason for putting forward this amendment is the reason of principle; namely, that as I understand it from the PR people the objective of the top-up seats is to correct the imbalances in the first-past-the-post system. Logically they should do that on the basis of the first-past-the-post votes. I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I shall deal first with all the amendments in this group except Amendment No. 44, which I shall discuss afterwards because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said, that is in many ways the key amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness need not argue about the other amendments. As I said, they are consequential on Amendment No. 44 because if Amendment No. 44 were to be accepted by your Lordships there would be no provision for individual candidates. I am merely keeping the Bill tidy, which I thought was a good thing.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, if the noble Lord will bear with me, I shall deal with the other amendments as well. They provide the background to our thinking and some of the reasons why we do not agree with Amendment No. 44.
The Government's views on all these amendments will be fairly clear by now from earlier stages of the Bill. We are fully committed to the regional members scheme as set out in the Bill. We consider it an essential part of the arrangements for the Scottish parliament.
As I have said on other occasions, we want to ensure that the electoral arrangements for the Scottish parliament will ensure a fairer balance of representation and will more accurately represent the diversity of political opinion. We also want the parliament to be able to draw on a wide range of talented people whether or not they have a political affiliation. With these amendments the noble Lord is trying to restrict the choice available to the electorate.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has argued today, as he has previously, that allowing individuals to stand as regional members undermines the proportionality on which the additional member system is based. I have looked carefully at what he has said on other occasions. He suggested that an individual could deprive a political party of proportionality. He spoke of people being mathematically literate and that there should be concern about the results. The noble Lord went on to give examples indicating how bad that might be for the Labour Party. I am touched that he is so concerned about what it might mean for my party. However,

1647
I cannot help but suggest that he may be revealing a concern that his own party will not do so well out of this if it has individuals standing.
There is a long tradition in Scotland of independents standing in local government. Many people, for whatever reason, do not feel properly represented by the political parties. By allowing independent candidates to stand in the regional election we ensure that fewer people feel disenfranchised and without representation in the parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has suggested that there is little chance of an independent being elected but that he or she may just receive sufficient votes to frustrate a political party. I am not so sure that the parliament will not have some independent candidates. Clearly much would depend on the pattern of the voting. However, using last year's general election results as a model, an independent candidate who secured some 25,000 votes, which in some regions would be around 5 to 6 per cent. of the electorate, would have been returned as a regional MSP. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that that could happen.
The Government are aiming to give the electorate more choice. The amendments tabled by the Opposition would have the opposite result. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw them.
Amendment No. 44 as presented and introduced by the noble Lord offers an ingenious—but I am afraid unacceptable—solution to a concern which he has expressed at earlier stages of the Bill. The noble Lord is concerned that by giving the voter the freedom to the vote twice, once for a constituency representative and once for a party or an independent candidate, we are opening the way for abuse of the system, and in particular the formation of what he has termed "alter ego" or "bogus" parties. We covered this ground thoroughly at earlier stages and I do not propose to restate all our arguments in detail.
We recognise that there is a technical possibility that parties could seek to subvert the arrangements for proportionality. But, unlike the noble Lord, we think that the fear that this will happen in practice is out of all proportion to the real likelihood. We have faith in the ability of the electorate to recognise what is afoot; and it would undoubtedly be pointed out to them by the other parties. In any event, we really do think that there is no remedy for this potential problem which is not rather worse than the illness it seeks to cure. The noble Lord's amendment is, I am afraid to say, a very good case in point.
As the noble Lord explained, this amendment is designed to retain the additional member system, but on the basis of a single vote for each elector. We are not aware that among the very many different forms of voting which exist this approach has ever been tried. I could not help being intrigued at the thought that, if all this came to pass, the noble Lord's name might rank with d'Hondt and St. Lague in the electoral textbooks—but I accept that he is making a serious point. In response to that serious concern I am afraid that I have to say that I suspect the reason why this approach has never been tried is that it cannot stand up to scrutiny.
1648
Adopting the approach in the amendment would mean assuming that all the votes for a party's constituency candidates can be equated with a vote for that party. It would, therefore, overlook the sometimes substantial element of personal voting at constituency elections. It is difficult to see how this could not distort the results significantly, in some cases at least. In effect, it would lead to party candidates being elected from the regional list—which the amendment appears to envisage would continue—on the strength of the high personal, local vote for particular constituency candidates. And indeed the opposite effect could also apply where, for whatever reason, constituency candidates fall out of favour locally.
Yet, given the rationale for allocating list seats under the additional member system, it is critical to be able to identify in a reliable and defensible way voters' party preferences in such a system. The single vote system proposed in the amendment would undermine that and create a result which voters would—I think rightly—challenge as being based on a fundamentally flawed premise that we would be presuming that they voted in every case first and foremost on the basis of party allegiance. Given the attachment of noble Lords opposite to models of voting which leave room for local issues to take precedence over national ones, that seems an odd stance for them to take.
The amendment would also appear to be intended to preclude the possibility of independent candidates being elected for regional seats as it is entirely based on aggregating the votes for party candidates. As we have already made clear, we feel that the opportunity for independents to be elected at regional level is an important aspect of our proposals and a recognition of the variety of Scottish political life. In addition to that, small parties would be forced to contest every seat in a region to be sure of gaining sufficient votes to qualify for an additional member. That seems to us unfair and unacceptable.
I hope the noble Lord will accept that this is not an electoral system which can be defended. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness's last remark refers to her electoral system, not to mine.
Several of the arguments put forward were arguments to points that I made in Committee but did not make this evening. My concern has grown about the misuse that could be made of the system, which would stop it doing what it is supposed to do, which is to right the imbalance of first-past-the-post. The noble Baroness made no attempt to address that point, despite the fact that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is clearly extremely worried about it. Perhaps she should have had a discussion with him before today's debate as he seems to be sufficiently worried about the matter to make the points that I have just repeated.
As regards the amendments to remove the individual candidates, I made it clear that they were consequential on Amendment No. 44. The idea that individual

1649
candidates will make much progress is Cloud-cuckoo-land. I noticed that the noble Baroness seemed to equate the Scottish parliament with local government and to believe that we shall have independent Scottish members of parliament just as we have independents in local government. It is a long time since any independents have been elected to the House of Commons from Scotland. An independent was elected for an English constituency, but that was only because the other parties did not stand. I cannot see that happening in the regional list, which is where the independent will supposedly gain his or her advantage. It will be interesting to read the words equating the Scottish parliament to local government. I shall be amazed if an independent wins a seat to the Scottish parliament in the list or indeed in first-past-the-post unless some of the parties decide not to contest a seat and combine to put their weight behind one candidate, for whatever reason.
I shall not say much about the alter ego party. I think we can deal with that matter by amendments that some of my clever friends have suggested that I should put down to the Registration of Political Parties Bill. I look forward to the Government accepting one of my amendments or coming forward with their own.
However, the point that appears to be totally lost in the argument put forward by the Government is that, if the top-up system is designed to right an imbalance in the first-past-the-post seats, it should bear some resemblance to the votes in the first-past-the-post seats. In the light of all the academic works devoted to elections, I was amazed to be told that there were substantial elements of personal voting. My understanding is that, based on many elections, David Butler concluded that plus or minus approximately 500 was about the very best and that was pretty generous; in other words, if a candidate was hated he would lose about 500 votes and if he was loved he would gain about 500. Anyone who looks at swingometers on any election night will see that the edges are blurred, as in any statistical exercise, and the result has little or nothing to do with personal votes but may have a lot to do with the make-up of constituencies, local pressures or whatever. It has little to do with personal voting. In any case, even if one member is so hugely popular that he gets hundreds more votes than he or his party would otherwise have got, when taken over a whole region with the d'Hondt divisor it makes no difference at the end of the day. I am afraid that that is not an argument.
The whole point about the top-up is that it is designed to deal with party balance. The people who say that the second vote is the way to do it have lost sight of that. Initially, Germany had the system that I have suggested. It is not true that it is not used anywhere. Germany moved and in doing so did two things. Germany has very large regional lists; they do not have seven but sometimes 150 and the same number as the first-past-the-post. Therefore, in Germany it is a very different ball game that cannot be equated with the majority being first-past-the-post and then a limited number of seats providing the top-up. The change made by the Germans was based on a quite different arithmetical system.
1650
However, I do not believe that I shall make any progress this evening. I concur with Donald Dewar's worries. Next May I may have to return to the Government and say, "I told you so". I shall not relish it, because the last thing that I want is to see the Scottish National Party winning and taking my country out of the Union. I shall not have touching sympathy with the Labour Party if it happens to be the loser in this process. My touching sympathy is with the Scottish public, Scotland and the Union. For that reason I believe that we should look very carefully at the design of these systems, especially in light of the kind of campaign that so worries Donald Dewar. If he is worried, I am worried. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert ("and any list of such candidates, submitted to the regional returning officer, shall appear on the ballot paper for regional members in that region").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35. This time it is a simple matter. Amendment No. 35 takes us back to an issue discussed earlier; namely, whether or not in the second ballot the names will be on the paper. As the matter stood last time, other than independents the names would not be on it. Therefore, the second ballot paper would make reference to the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrat Party, the Labour Party, the Scottish National Party, perhaps the Green Party for the sake of completeness—who knows?—and whatever number of independents come up. The only people whose names will be on the list are the independents. The names of the candidates of the parties will not appear on the ballot paper.
We did not make any progress on this matter last time. I do not want to quote all the expressions used then by the noble Baroness but among them were that the ballot paper would be too complicated and that people would not understand it—all the usual arguments that the advocates of proportional representation tell us are bogus when we say that it is better to stay with the first-past-the-post system. That was what the noble Baroness said last time.
The fact of the matter—it is unfortunate for the Government that I lead on all the constitutional Bills—is that on 12th October when debating the European Parliamentary Elections Bill I tabled an amendment that sought to do the same for these elections, which are to be based on a large regional list. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said:
"I did make it clear earlier—and I repeat it now—that it is our intention that all candidates' names should appear on the ballot paper for European Parliamentary elections. The Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office gave an assurance to that effect in his Written Parliamentary Answer on 23rd June and I gave the same assurance two days later when we considered the matter in Committee".".—[Official Report, 12/10/98; col. 737.]
I knew that, but I just thought I would put it down again because the Scottish Office did not seem to know it.
The noble Lord went on to say:
"A prototype ballot paper has been placed in the Library of both Houses."
I have the prototype ballot paper. It has on it the list of names for the Conservative Party, the Green Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party, and it has the names of the independent candidates as well. I notice that the independent candidates are for legalised cannabis, stop the by-pass and the Monster Raving Loony Party. I thought the Monster Raving Loony Party might just qualify under the Registration of Political Parties Bill.
It is perfectly clear that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said. That is what this document in the Library said. I think I am right in saying that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was present on the Bench and he therefore heard me say—I do not normally read my speeches of course:
"My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I did not actually expect anything less than that assurance. I thought this would be a useful exercise because we are dealing with an important issue, … However, I should just warn the Minister that he had better brief his colleagues who are dealing with the Scotland Bill that the words he has just used will be prayed in aid against them when we come to those deliberations."—[Official Report, 12/10/98; col. 738.]
I pray in aid the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, my Amendment No. 36 has much the same affect as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish's Amendment No. 35. I do not have the Hansard in front of me, but, if I remember rightly, I was present on the occasion to which he has referred and I tried to entice the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to extend his description on to this Bill but he for some reason resisted my blandishments. However, I also recall that at the Committee stage the Government did undertake to give further consideration to this matter, particularly in the committee meeting in Edinburgh dealing with electoral arrangements. There has been some dialogue between us and the Government over the Summer Recess, so I am hopeful that the Government will accept the sensible proposal that the names of the candidates should appear on the ballot paper.
My amendment has one further minor addition and it is the suggestion that the names be limited to nine in number. I really propose that as a probing matter because I do not understand why we need to have as many as 12. I do not yet know of any party which is putting forward a list of 12, so maybe my amendment is not necessary. It seems to me exceptionally generous and an unnecessary cluttering of the ballot paper, which is a point made by the noble Baroness in a previous debate, to have as many as 12 names. I think it would be tidier to limit the number to nine, but I do not feel strongly on that. I am looking forward to the Government accepting the principle of what we are now proposing.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, as has been said before, there are very strong and persuasive arguments against putting
1652
the names of candidates on the ballot paper. However, I have to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and his colleagues on the power of the arguments that they have used. We have listened and we have very largely been persuaded. The concern we had from the start was the manageability of the ballot paper and there are still some issues to deal with there. Fortunately, over the summer research has been carried out by the School of Public Policy at University College London on whether people prefer a straight party signal or whether they prefer the names on the list. The research at the moment is not absolutely clear. Some like it nice and simple to know that they are going for the party. Others like to know who the candidates are. I do accept the point that if we can get on to the ballot paper the lists of the names of the candidates and it does not become something like a kitchen roll then that has considerable advantages. It does of course mean that we preserve a worthwhile principle, that people actually know the identities of the candidates for whom they are voting. We have sought hard to preserve that in the way we have approached the issue.
There are some difficulties. It might seem a minor problem, but for older people the ballot paper must be of adequate type size so that it is not a confusing blur. But that is not an insuperable problem. Unless we come up against some major practical difficulties, I give the assurance that we shall move towards putting the names on the ballot paper. Some additional work has been done on the example of a ballot paper that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has before him. I hope that we shall be able to make a variety of those available before the end of Report stage.
There is some advantage in making use of the order-making powers in Clause 11 to ensure that it is achieved rather than putting the provision on the face of the Bill. But that is a difference of approach. Clause 11 covers everything to do with the conduct of elections. We expect to lay that order around Christmas and for it to be debated in both Houses during January. I believe that that could be an appropriate way forward.
I believe that we have widespread agreement on the issue. I and the Government are glad that there is not an insuperable problem in putting the names down. I think that we can go to 12 without making a difficulty. The reason for the figure 12 is to seek to overcome the difficulty that over a period of time, with possibilities of deaths, people moving away or perhaps losing an interest in politics, one runs out of candidates on the regional list where a vacancy occurs. I realise that it is a somewhat belt-and-braces solution, but it is better to err in that direction than to keep the number too small. It will be for the judgment of the political parties to decide the number. I hope that on the basis of what I have said, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have made serious progress. I did not have to go to the trouble of persuading the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to come to the Dispatch Box to give assurances on the European legislation. I think that I can speak for the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, in saying that we are pleased about this. I am content that the provision is not on the

1653
face of the Bill. Having been a Minister, I trust the Minister's words without question.
I look forward to seeing the ballot papers. It will be good to see them before the end of Report stage. I look forward to the regulations in January. With grateful thanks to the Minister, perhaps I may say that this is an important step forward in the cause of democracy and open government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 42 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 3, line 37, leave out from ("a") to end of line 39 and insert ("party registered under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment. Clause 4(9) states:
"In this Act, 'registered political party' means a political party registered under any enactment providing for the registration of political parties".
What will happen is that the "registered political party" will mean a political party registered under the Registration of Political Parties Bill which is before your Lordships' House. It seems a little daft that we cannot say what we mean. That will be the legislation used in subsection (9). I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, we do not consider that this amendment is necessary. Perhaps I may explain why. The wording in Clause 4(9) is already wide enough to cover the Registration of Political Parties Bill which, as the noble Lord reminded us, has still to receive Royal Assent. It is not necessary to refer to it expressly on the face of the Bill.
Moreover, at paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 to that Bill there is an amendment to what is now Clause 4(9) of this Bill and so will refer to parties registered under the Registration of Political Parties Act.
Nevertheless, we shall consider whether it might be more appropriate to proceed along the lines suggested by the noble Lord and may return with amendments to deal with this minor drafting matter on Report. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I should give up now while I am ahead. That is two successes on the trot! I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. He started negatively and I was thinking that it was a good job that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was not in his seat because the Minister would have had another lecture on meaningless words in Bills when a simpler form is available.
The amendment arose because I noticed the reference in the Registration of Political Parties Bill, but I am glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord will consider making the amendment at a later stage. I am not entirely sure which of the two Bills will reach the statute book
1654
first, but it does not matter much. We know what we mean and I am grateful for the positive assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Poll for regional members]:
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 4, line 2, after first ("a") insert ("candidate of a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think that I will make much progress with this amendment and I am merely making my point. The amendment raises the question of open lists. Earlier this week during debates on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill your Lordships disagreed with the Government and decided that a list ought to be open and not closed; in other words, that the electorate ought to be able to decide not only which party should send Members to the European Parliament but also which Members on a party's list ought to go.
The same argument applies here, which is why I shall not rehearse it at any great length. As currently drafted, the political parties, by whichever means, will submit a list and an order. When a Labour voter votes Labour he will be voting only for the Labour Party. He will see the names but he will not be able to say which he prefers. The same applies to those voting for the other parties. If I were to seek election and were placed third on the list because the party apparatchiks did not like some of my victories over the Government, or whatever, but the wider Conservative electorate thought that I should be first they should be able to do it. However, as the Bill currently stands, they would not be able to do so. I want the electorate to have the choice. And before anyone rushes off to the newspapers, I should say that I have no intention of standing for the Scottish parliament. I intend to stay here and keep the Government on their toes so far as I can.
The point about the open lists is important and I should like to hear what the Scottish Office thinks about it. The amendment would improve the way in which the public perceived the top-up members. There is a huge danger that the public will see them merely as the product of the party apparatchiks. That is not good for democracy. It is a fairly simple business for the electorate to be given the choice not only as regards the party but also the party list.
I am allowing the party to put names in the order of preference. All the research tells us that in those circumstances people merely vote for the person at the top of the list. Therefore, the party will inevitably gain an advantage. But if there is someone the public really want, particularly the third or fourth member—it will not influence the first so much—it is right that the public should decide. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, this must be about the fourth debate in which we have all joined on

1655
open lists versus closed lists. I welcome the opportunity to restate the position of my party; namely, that we are in favour of open lists, where they can be obtained. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, had great fun at our expense the other night because we voted against open lists in the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. But that was for a very simple reason. That Bill was brought forward by the Government not as part of a manifesto commitment but at the request and persuasive insistence of our party. Having done that and introduced the proportional election system for the European Parliament, it would have been ludicrous for us to endanger that by voting against a part of the Bill which would have resulted in it going back to the other place. Had we done that the Government would have been perfectly entitled to say, "You ungrateful so-and-so's, we shall not bother to proceed with the Bill. We shall let it drop and we shall carry out the elections as we have always done". That would have greatly delighted the Conservative Party. We were not going to fall for that; we did not, and voted accordingly.
But as regards this Bill there is no agreement among the parties on this issue. This amount of detail was not discussed in the constitutional convention. The principle of an additional list system was agreed. There simply remains a difference of opinion between us on the issue as to whether the electorate should or should not choose the candidates. We believe that they should.
I am sorry that some Members on the Labour Benches who spoke previously are not with us tonight. They are under a misapprehension that somehow open lists can cure the problems inside the Labour Party where certain people have been unable to get on to lists. It would not do anything of the kind. The Dennis Canavan problem, if I may so refer to it, will not be cured by whether we have open or closed lists. It is an internal matter for the Labour Party and nothing to do with the argument at all. The question of whether people get on to lists or not is much more important in a way than whether such lists are open or closed.
We are unashamed in saying repeatedly in our party that we have operated the system as it should be operated, with an open vote among all its members to determine the order on the lists. So in that sense we have had open lists within our own party and I think that is the right way. The fact that the Conservative Party, the Scottish National Party and the Labour Party have not done it is their funeral. It is for their members to object. I know that they have done so. We are sympathetic to the idea. We do not believe for one minute that the Government are going to show last-minute repentance on this matter as they did about names on ballot papers. We know that we cannot win everything in one night. It would be very nice if we could.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who has now made his fourth speech on this subject in this place at least, that I find it difficult to take lectures from him on the details of proportional representation. It is like taking lectures from a vegetarian on how my steak should be cooked, or from
1656
a teetotaller on which claret I should drink, or lectures from a virgin on how—perhaps that's enough analogy. I rest my case.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Steel of Aikwood, are both right in that we have not been persuaded. We are maintaining our position. I do not see what is the opposition to closed lists. When one considers the roles of parties it is clear under the present system of first-past-the-post that the parties bring their choice to the electorate and invite it to support a particular candidate. The electorate has no choice or influence in deciding who the candidate will be. But that is not absolutely necessary under the first-past-the-post systems. Indeed, in the United States there is the well-known phenomenon of the primary election, where the supporters of a particular party participate in a primary election in selecting the candidate to carry that party's nomination into the election itself.
If there is to be consistency here, noble Lords opposite should be arguing for the introduction of primary elections into the first-past-the-post system. I have heard no argument along those lines on the number of occasions that we have debated this issue.
If we accept that it is perfectly right and proper for parties to bring candidates to the electorate and offer it no choice under the first-past-the-post system, there is no great case to be made against parties doing the same when we come to a list system. It is perfectly reasonable for the party to make its choice in whichever way it wishes—through the polling of all its individual members, as is the case with the Liberal Democrat party, or through some other means. That is, quite rightly, a matter for the parties.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that in the first-past-the-post system the candidate has no effect? I can assure him that in the Liberal Democrat Party that is not true; the candidate has a tremendous effect.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the electorate has no way of choosing the party's candidates under the first-past-the-post system as it is operated by political parties in this country. I then indicated that that is not absolutely the only way of arranging matters. In the United States, where a first-past-the-post system exists, primary elections also exist which enable individuals, a wider group, to select the party nominee. That is the point that I am making. I then made the further point that I have heard no argument in favour of primaries being introduced into our political arrangements in this country.
If it is proper for parties to bring to the judgment of the electorate individual candidates under the first-past-the-post system, I see no argument in principle why parties should not be able to do exactly the same under a list system and make their own selections and their own ordering however they wish. Quite properly it is a matter for the parties. The parties can choose different ways, but that is what they do. They are

1657
satisfied with their ordering, they take it to the electorate and say, "This is our judgment, do you support us or do you not?" On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that response was interesting for two reasons. First, we can see that the Government line is consistent between the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and this Bill. Secondly, we received an explanation—which I was delighted to give the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, the opportunity of making—of why the Liberal Democrats on Tuesday voted one way and this evening, if there was a vote, they would vote the other way. I suppose one cannot expect much more than that: one attitude on Tuesday and two days later going the opposite way.
As to complaining about me setting myself up to give lectures on PR, I take the view that if I have to be deaved by arguments about PR, then at least I must try to look after the intellectual purity and logic of those who advocate PR—usually at length, as I know to my cost. It seems to be the one thing that goes along with PR. You can really bore for Britain on it. I try not to bore for Britain against it, but it is a great danger.
If people are to move to a new system of voting, there should be an internal logic inside that new system. That is what I am trying to ensure that the Government and their friends in the Liberal Democrat party achieve. If that shows up their new system to be illogical and less than sensible, that might just persuade them that they should stay with first-past-the-post.
The noble Lord the Minister, like his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, chooses those parts of first-past-the-post he likes in order to defend his new system. In first-past-the-post the electorate are not allowed to choose who the Conservative candidate should be or who the Labour Party candidate should be, so why should they be allowed to do so under a PR system? The difference is this. It is actually quite easy to give them the choice under a PR system whereas, short of primaries, it is not so easy under first-past-the-post.
I am almost tempted to promise to bring forward an amendment to introduce primary elections into this country to see exactly what kind of argument the Minister will then put up in order to knock me down, as I am pretty certain he would. Everyone in the body politic in this country knows that the reason why the governing party does not want open lists is simply that it wants to keep control of who goes on that list and who gets to these two parliaments—in our case, on the top-up. That is what it wants. It does not even want to give its party members any say.
I said on the other Bill that the Liberal Democrats have gone to the most open system, although it does not actually involve all those people who will vote Liberal Democrat. It involves those who have paid their membership. As far as concerns the Scottish parliament, all the candidates for our list will have had to be adopted by a constituency for first-past-the-post and they will
1658
therefore have had to be chosen in individual constituencies by the membership in that constituency. So I believe there is perhaps a larger element of party democracy in that system than the noble Lord, Lord Steel, was implying.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the party members do not have a vote? It is only those who attend the meetings who have a vote. If that were to happen at elections, we would have a very low turn-out indeed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure that it is only the people who come to the polling station who have a vote. There are some postal votes. I shall be quite open about it. I would have preferred to see us carrying out a postal vote of the membership. My arguments did not prevail for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that the next time round my arguments will prevail because databases will be in existence and my party will be able to do that. I certainly hope that it will. I think it is right and proper and totally consistent with my argument.
I shall not put the matter to a vote tonight because we have already defeated the Government on it. It is now up to the Government to decide in the other place what they are going to do in terms of the European elections. But if—which I suspect is fairly unlikely—they decide to accept the proposition of open lists which your Lordships sent down to them, I shall certainly be returning to this Bill at Third Reading to ask for the same. The Welsh people, I am afraid, will have to live with what they have. However, if the Government decide not to accept the proposition, I shall have to take that into account and consider whether to come back at Third Reading to see if we should do it on the Scottish scene, where I now understand I would have the support of the Liberal Democrats.
I might quite enjoy doing that in order to get it on the voting record that they can vote one way on the same proposition in one Act of Parliament and a different way on another. But perhaps the success the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and I are having this evening in persuading the Government to accept our amendments will persuade me to be more friendly. We had better wait and see. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Calculation of regional figures]:
10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 4, leave out lines 11 to 16 and insert ("a regional figure shall be calculated for the purposes of section 7 as follows.

(2A) Where no candidates of the party have been returned as constituency members in a region, the figure shall be the total number of regional votes given for the party in that region.

(2B) Where at least one candidate of the party has been returned as a constituency member in a region, the figure shall be the total number of regional votes given for the party in that region, divided by one more than twice the number of candidates of the party returned as constituency members in that region.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 46, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 47. These two amendments change the divisor. The d'Hondt system is the divisor system which the Government have chosen. I make no great complaint about that. The divisor is used in deciding how many seats a party receives in the top-up. That means that the total is one more than the number of seats it has won—that includes won in the top-up because the calculation changes with each successive seat moving to whichever party wins it. That means that the divisor is literally two, three, four, five. There are two variations here and I make no apology for my pronunciation. There is no value in trying to put on a false French accent. Other noble Lords who wish to show off are free to do so. I am probably safe because the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who chastised me on the last occasion is not here.
Amendment No. 46 is straightforward St. Lague and it means that the divisors go up by one, three, seven, as we proceed. The modified St. Lague is rather more complex and goes up by fractions. It starts at 1.4 and then goes up by the multiples that are in the amendment. I do not wish to go into the arithmetic. The point is that St. Lague and modified St. Lague give advantages to the minority parties. They give advantages to the parties which have not been very successful in first-past-the-post but which have a substantial vote. The d'Hondt system is harsher on minority parties. It favours the big battalions.
The fact is that that will mean in relation to this Bill, at least in next May's election, that it favours the Labour Party and the Scottish National Party. I do not know which one it will favour more. That rather depends on what happens. But undoubtedly, the d'Hondt system will favour the two big battalions.
The point about St. Lague and modified St. Lague is that they will favour the Liberal Democrats and ourselves and, perhaps more important, they will favour the Greens. Frankly, the idea of the Greens winning a seat in this situation is about as unlikely as an independent winning a seat. It may even favour the independents and, given the love affair which the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, has with the concept of independents, she at least should be hugely attracted by the idea of selecting either St. Lague or modified St. Lague.
That is the proposition I am putting to the Government. I am asking them why they have chosen d'Hondt. Have they chosen it because they are a big battalion and d'Hondt favours them? If the Government are really serious about a proper balance in the parliament, about helping independents and helping small parties, they should choose St. Lague or modified St. Lague. Why will they not do so? That is a simple question. I hope I receive a simple answer and that that answer is not that they have not chosen it because it does not favour the Labour Party. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord for introducing formulae into your Lordships'
1660
House at this time of night. This is not an ideal time at which to discuss the intricacies of different electoral systems.
As the noble Lord pointed out, Amendment No. 46 is what may be described as a pure St. Lague system which is used in New Zealand. I understand that that is regarded generally as being too favourable to small and fringe parties. As a consequence, a modified version of that system was introduced in Scandinavia and that is reflected in Amendment No. 47.
I start by saying that we do not suggest that other systems, including St. Lague or modified St. Lague, are without merit. Indeed, the noble Lord has outlined the advantages of adopting the St. Lague divisor. However, this is not a matter on which we should delay much further your Lordships' consideration of the Bill.
In fairness, the noble Lord accepts that there are genuine arguments in favour of supporting the d'Hondt system other than that it favours the Labour Party. The Government favour the d'Hondt divisor as set out in the Bill not because it favours the Labour Party or the Scottish National Party for that matter. If we apply the various divisors to the results of the last election, I understand that they result in only slight differences. We believe that d'Hondt is simpler to understand and more logical to apply. It is easier to explain to the public and to those who will have to apply it. It has the virtue of being consistent with the approach proposed for the European Parliament elections and the elections to the Welsh assembly. Incidentally, it is also the approach set out in the White Paper.
As I said, we are not suggesting that other electoral divisors are without merit. However, this is the one we have chosen for the reasons I gave. The arguments advanced by the noble Lord do not convince us that they have more to offer than the d'Hondt system.
I can assure the noble Lord that the Government did not select this divisor on the basis that it is better for the Labour Party. The basic election system used in the Bill reflects that recommended by the electoral commission established by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It is the system which was set out in the White Paper. It produces fair and reasonable results and the Government are not persuaded that we should change the divisor. For those reasons I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. On other occasions Scandinavia is held up as a shining beacon. Clearly it is not always a shining beacon and is not always what it is cracked up to be, especially when it comes to St. Lague or modified St. Lague.
I am pleased that the Minister and his advisers have at least worked out the consequences of the two systems and I broadly concur. It is only at this time of night that one could possibly start to discuss matters like this. If we discussed it in the broad light of day, somebody might come along and take us all away. I might say also that a little wine of the country might go down quite well and even improve the debate. As we cannot have that, there we are.

1661
I am satisfied. I felt it was worth returning to the issue. I believe I withdrew it on the last occasion but it was worth getting the Government to put on record why they favoured d'Hondt rather than either of the St. Lague variations. After the election in May, when people make the calculation, we look forward to seeing whether or not the results would have been different or more favourable to the smaller parties if we had chosen either of the St. Lague methods. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Allocation of seats to regional members]:
[Amendments Nos. 48 to 52 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Regional vacancies]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 53.
Page 5, line 15, leave out ("applies") and insert ("and section (Regional vacancies: election) apply").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 53 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 54 and 56 to 59. Amendment No. 53 is in fact a paving amendment. The two important amendments are Amendments Nos. 58 and 59. They relate to by-elections.
The Bill as it stands means that if a by-election is called either because of a member dying or resigning—with some qualifications that the Minister has kindly agreed to include; and I thank him for that—the position is filled by the person next on the list who is still a member of the party, is willing to go to the parliament and is in good standing with the party as well. I believe we achieved all those objectives.
The problem arises if, for any reason, the list runs out. That may be particularly true if a party does not put forward all its members. After all, after two years a few may have gone off to do other things. Some may have been offered attractive jobs and feel that a year in the Scottish parliament as top-up is not what they should be doing in the future; they may have been elected to the other place or even to the European Parliament in the interim. It may not happen often, but if we run out of lists, what do we do?
Another question arises if an independent member dies or resigns. As the provisions stand, the seat would remain vacant because that member was an independent. At the risk of being accused again of purity, I suggest that both those eventualities mean that the party balance, which the second vote is intended to maintain or to create, in the parliament would have been destroyed.
That is why I am asking the Government why they are not providing for a by-election, as they have in the European Parliamentary Elections Bill under which there would be a by-election in a similar situation. In fact, that would be a first-past-the-post by-election in a very large constituency. I repeat that that Bill provides for a by-election. I believe that in this Bill there should be such a provision for a by-election in the event of a party running out of names on the list to fill a vacancy.
I have two methods of achieving that end. The first is my favoured solution and it is the most straightforward. We could simply call a by-election across the region on a first-past-the-post basis; each of the parties could put up one candidate; there would be a good scrap and somebody would win.
My second method is more sophisticated. Perhaps it is "purer", if I may put it that way. It is based on the fact that the original intention of the d'Hondt divisor was that such a seat would go to the Labour Party or to an independent if it had been so held previously. Therefore, in the case of a Labour-held seat, if there is a by-election only members of the Labour Party could be put forward as candidates. The electorate would then make a choice. However, I suspect that that is far too complex and far too "pure" and that my rather less pure, but more understandable, first amendment is the better. I suspect that the person who, along with me, drafted this amendment found that, late at night, her sense of humour was getting the better of her! I recognise that there are complications with it.
However, if the seats are to achieve that which they are supposed to achieve and if vacant seats have to be filled later, even if there is a by-election, they should be filled by the party which previously held that seat. I know that the Minister will say that I am right about that argument and that that is why the seat will be left vacant if it cannot be filled from the list. I am getting to know the Government's arguments! I understand them, but I think it is more important to fill the vacancy and to ensure that there are always 129 members of the Scottish parliament.
So, my favoured amendment is Amendment No. 58 which would mean an ordinary by-election and which, as far as the top-up is concerned, would put this Bill on all fours with the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is getting so good at working out the Government's arguments that he may, indeed, be offered a job on the Government Front Bench if he continues in a similar vein for much longer. I believe that the reasons why the Government are opposed to these amendments became clear as the noble Lord tried to advance his argument, particularly in relation to his "pure" version.
The problem is that the list system here is used as a corrective to introduce and to maintain proportionality. That is why this situation is different from what happens in a European parliamentary election. Clearly, if a vacancy occurs, as the noble Lord indicated, the party list is used. That is why we have provided for a list of 12 rather than the nine mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. That is to ensure that there is every opportunity for the party concerned to be in a position to provide someone who is still ready, willing and able to do the job.
However, if for some reason the party list runs out of candidates and there is a by-election, it is more than likely that the by-election would add to the disproportionality of the parliament. Perhaps I may refer—again, purely hypothetically—to a Conservative

1663
list member in Glasgow. If he were by some act of God to secure election to the other place during his period on the list in the Scottish parliament, a vacancy might well occur. If a by-election arose in the Glasgow list constituency, I suggest it is highly unlikely that the Conservative candidate would be successful. The probable outcome would be to add to the Labour representation. That would have the effect of enhancing the disproportionality within the system.
Although I can understand the attractions of a by-election for the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—namely, that it provides him with the opportunity for a good scrap—I do not think it logically fits the structure that we have whereby the whole list system exists to enhance proportionality and, by definition, gives greater opportunity of election to members of those parties who have not done particularly well through the first-past-the-post system. If you then have a by-election based on first-past-the-post, you are likely to make the problem of disproportionality even worse.
I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is looking through a glass darkly when he proposes his "pure" system; that is, that we have a by-election limited to those candidates put forward by one political party. One would then require a political party to put forward a number of different candidates. That is an interesting idea. I am not quite sure what happens if an independent's place falls vacant. I believe that on reflection it will be clear that one of these proposals is totally bizarre and fanciful and the other works to produce the opposite result to that which the whole corrective principle is there to sustain. On that basis I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the trouble with debate is that one can change one's mind during the course of the debate. The noble Lord has persuaded me that Amendment No. 58 is not valid because, as he rightly points out, it could distort party advantage. For example, if, as we hope, a Conservative member or two will be elected in Glasgow in the top-up, and a Liberal Democrat member will be elected in the top-up, and one of them falls by the wayside for whatever reason, a first-past-the-post by-election in Glasgow would be unlikely to produce a victory for either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, unless the world is going to change quite markedly in the next couple of years. Such a situation may well produce a by-election victory for the Scottish National Party, which I suppose none of us would want. Therefore I think the noble Lord has convinced me on that first option.
However, as regards the second option, while I appreciate that a political party would have to put up more than one person, it would be interesting to see how it would attract the votes of the members of the other political parties. I must admit I was quite tempted by that idea. I suppose there is a third option which I may return to later. As we have allowed the parties to put up the candidates for the list, if the list ran out it would not
1664
be all that illogical to allow the party to nominate someone for the vacancy, if we needed to fill the vacancy. Therefore I think there is a third option. However, for the moment I shall withdraw my amendment and contemplate further the question of by-elections and the top-ups. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 54 to 59 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Power to make provision about elections]:
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 63 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Disqualification from membership of the Parliament]:
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 7, line 18, leave out ("is a") and insert ("holds or has held the office of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have touched on this issue before. This amendment relates to the disqualification from membership of the Scots parliament of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to bring this clause into line with other provisions in the Bill. The point of the amendment is that retired Lords of Appeal in Ordinary or retired judges can sit in the judicial committee of the Privy Council, and those retired judges would on the face of it not be subject to disqualification unless it was the Government's intention to include such office holders under the terms of Clause 14(1)(d) by making reference to them in an Order in Council.
Notwithstanding the practical arrangements which could be designed to make certain that retired judges who were also MSPs would not hear devolution issues, it nevertheless appears illogical in terms of the doctrine of separation of powers to allow that potential overlap. If there is a possibility of retired judges not being excluded from sitting on the judicial committee of the Privy Council, a retired judge who was an MSP could end up deciding a case in which he was legislator and on which he had deliberated earlier. I shall be grateful for the noble and learned Lord's reply.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that membership of the Scottish parliament is open to as wide a range of people as possible while ensuring appropriate disqualifications. In seeking to achieve that, we cannot support any of these amendments.
Before explaining our position in regard to the amendments, I wish to point out that in relation to Amendment No. 65 there is a technical defect in the sense that I suspect the Law Society has briefed the noble Lord with the wrong section of the Act. It should be Section 25 rather than Section 23.
That aside, the position is this. It was necessary in Clause 14 of the Bill to make special provision disqualifying serving Lords of Appeal in Ordinary from becoming MSPs. That reflects the separation between the judiciary and the legislature. The reason it was necessary in Clause 14 to make a specific exception for a serving Lord of Appeal in Ordinary is that there is an exception introduced in Clause 15 for Members of this House, so that Members of this House are not

1665
disqualified—as I am sure the noble Lord will be relieved to know. Without that express disqualification in Clause 14, there would have been nothing else to disqualify Lords of Appeal in Ordinary as they are not covered by the disqualification of judges under the 1975 Act.
I suspect that part of the concern is that past, as well as present, Lords of Appeal and other retired holders of high judicial office may become members of the Scottish parliament and may also be eligible to sit on the judicial committee of the Privy Council to consider devolution vires issues.
With respect, this is a worry without cause. There is quite rightly nothing to stop such well-qualified people from becoming members of the Scottish parliament. Indeed, there may be an advantage in having a retired judge as a member of the parliament, assuming that he or she gained favour with the electorate. However, it is not appropriate or necessary to disqualify them from membership of the parliament simply because it is theoretically possible for them to hear devolution issues in the judicial committee. In fact, some of those retired judges may not even be permitted to sit on the judicial committee because they are not Privy Counsellors. However, the composition of the judicial committee to hear devolution issues will be decided by the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. Clearly, the noble and learned Lord would wish to consider whether it would be appropriate for an eligible member of the committee who was also a member of the Scottish parliament to consider a devolution case. I should expect that he would conclude that that was totally inappropriate.
In the light of that explanation, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Advocate. He is implying that he is giving a clear exhortation to the judge who would decide which Lord of Appeal in Ordinary should appear on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that it would be wholly inappropriate if he were also an MSP. In the light of that assurance, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Effect of disqualification]:
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 8, line 13, after ("sitting,") insert ("including in consequence of section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (mental illness),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment because I am slightly confused about the provision in Clause 16(4). That subsection deals with the disqualification of people with mental illness and people who are sequestered. It provides that, if a member of the parliament becomes disqualified because of either mental illness or sequestration,
"The seat of a disqualified member of the Parliament is not vacant",
and,
1666
"he shall not cease to be a Member of the Parliament until his seat becomes vacant but … any of his other rights and privileges as a Member of the Parliament may be withdrawn by a resolution of the Parliament".
As I understand it, the seat has a member who is either mentally ill or is sequestered. The sequestered member of parliament is obviously still capable of looking after his constituency until the parliament decides that his rights and privileges should be withdrawn. There is nothing wrong with him other than that he has had a bad business failure of some kind and finds himself with no money. The mentally ill person, on the other hand, is surely totally incapable of looking after his constituency. It strikes me as illogical that the two are tied together. I should like to hear the views of the Government as to whether there should not be an immediate by-election when a member of the parliament becomes mentally ill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the probing amendment moved by my noble friend. I suppose it is unlikely that there will ever be recourse to the provisions in Clause 16, and subsection (4) in particular, because one expects that people who are selected as candidates will be in robust good health, that their financial position will have been explored and that we shall therefore not have to face any such difficulties. However, for understandable reasons, the subsection has been included. When I saw my noble friend's amendment I took the opportunity of reading the Notes on Clauses on this clause. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could set out for the record, for the purposes of anyone who might have to consider the matter in the future, precisely what is intended by these provisions.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, is correct in his interpretation of the position. If a member were to suffer from a mental illness as defined, there would be a period of six months during which he would remain notionally a member, though he would obviously not be able to participate in the proceedings of the parliament.
The Government cannot accept these amendments. It would put a member of the Scottish parliament to whom Section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 may apply in a worse position than a Member of the other place who finds himself or herself suffering from a temporary mental illness. We think that there is merit in ensuring that members of the Scottish parliament receive the full benefit of the Section 141 procedure, as do Members of the other place.
Paragraph 17 of Schedule 8 provides for the application to members of the Scottish parliament of Section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which makes special provision about the vacation of seats of Members of the other place who are detained in mental institutions. Where that section applies to a member of the Scottish parliament, as was observed by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, his seat will not be vacated immediately. That will happen only when the procedure provided in Section 141 has been complied with and he continues to be detained after a six-month period.

1667
In the interim, Clause 16(4) provides that disqualification for such an MSP will mean that he is unable to take part in the proceedings for the duration of the disqualification and may have other rights and privileges withdrawn. This reflects the position of Members of the other place to whom Section 141 of the Mental Health Act applies, who will be unable to sit and vote.
Amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 68 would result in the immediate disqualification of a member if Section 141 applied. The member would immediately cease to be a member of the Scottish parliament and the seat would become vacant. The Section 141 procedure in his or her case would be rendered pointless.
I turn to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord. We all hope that Members of this place, the other place and the Scottish parliament will be healthy, but sadly occasionally people suffer from stress and require treatment for that. We consider it is appropriate that Section 141 should apply to members of the Scottish parliament in the same way that it applies to Members of the other place.
The Bill ensures that Section 141 allows a limited time for the member to recover from, say, a temporary breakdown or something of that nature. The six-month period would enable the member to recover and resume his or her seat and continue to represent the constituency. We believe that it is right that the member should not be able to participate in proceedings but may retake his or her seat once the cause of the disqualification is removed. We also consider that the procedures proposed in the amendments are unduly harsh. With that explanation, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I thank the Lord Advocate for his reply, which gives me great comfort. I have a much greater understanding of the situation. I concur with him and hope that it is a situation which never arises. However, we must be certain about it and the Government's position is now on record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67 to 69 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Clause 18 [Presiding Officer]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No.70:
Page 9, line 12, leave out ("Presiding Officer") and insert ("Speaker").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 70. All the amendments in this group in my name simply change the name of the presiding officer to "speaker". I note that grouped with this amendment is Amendment No.143 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, which does not achieve the same result but looks at the same problem. His amendment suggests that the Scottish parliament should have the right to change the titles of a number of people, including the presiding officer.
I speak to my narrower amendment, which homes in on the presiding officer or speaker. I spoke to this matter at the Committee stage and I do not believe that I received a satisfactory answer. The title "Speaker" comes from a tradition in history that is related entirely to the House of Commons, in that he was the poor soul—it was always a "him"—who had to be dragged to the Chair because he had the job of telling the king that Parliament did not like what he was doing. The king had a habit of shooting the messenger if he did not like the message. Thus, he was speaker to the king for the House of Commons.
But all over the world, especially the English-speaking part of it, the name speaker has come to be used to denote the person who chairs a parliament. The Canadian parliament and the Canadian provinces have speakers. There is no question of those bodies being confused as between the speaker of the Canadian parliament and the speaker of a provincial parliament. Even the Americans use the name. One might have thought that they would have thrown this overboard with the tea, but they did not. One has the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the Senate and speakers of the various state assemblies. It is a title which is worldwide in its application. It refers to federal parliaments and to state parliaments and, as we are looking at what I would call a quasi-federal system, it seems to me that no harm is done by our following in the footsteps of our Commonwealth brothers and sisters.
Whether the Government like it or not, this person will be called by the population and by the press "Speaker". Unfortunately my quote the last time, which I did rather hurriedly, was misunderstood and I shall repeat it. I have a fact sheet from a very sensible organisation in Scotland, Children in Scotland, which looks after children's interests, and indeed I think has some relationships and liaisons with the Scottish All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children. Its fact sheet is not designed for children but for politicians, and makes points to politicians and probably to interested adults in Scotland. This particular fact sheet contains the paragraph:
"Members of the Scottish Parliament will be elected by general election every four years. The parliament will have a Presiding Officer (the Speaker), Ministers, a Clerk, and a First Minister (effectively the Scottish Prime Minister)."
I know how much the idea of a rival Prime Minister in Edinburgh offends the current incumbent of 10 Downing Street, but frankly I do not think that that will cut any ice in Scotland. Quite quickly the Scottish First Minister will be called the Prime Minister.
That is not my problem here. I suggested that he should be called Premier because I thought that might be a little confusing and I understand the sensitivities of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. I was trying to be helpful. I am not always helpful to him but I was trying to be helpful in that regard. Tonight we are looking at the presiding officer—I nearly called him the Speaker. The Government are sticking their heads in the sand about this. If this parliament is to be a proper parliament—and I believe that is what we all intended

1669
it should be—it should be like other proper parliaments in the English-speaking world and be presided over by a Speaker. I beg to move.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I simply do not understand why the Government are making such a meal of this issue which we discussed at the Committee stage. I agree with him that the replies we had were really totally unsatisfactory.
Amendment No. 143 is slightly different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in that I am suggesting that we simply say that the parliament may change any of the titles listed below to whatever it considers more appropriate and that applies from presiding officer down to junior Scottish Minister. I believe that that is what will happen anyway, whatever we decide to do.
I am baffled at the Government's woodenness on this issue. One only has to look at what is happening elsewhere within the United Kingdom. The Government of Wales Act in Section 52 states:

"(1) The Assembly shall elect from among the Assembly members (a) the presiding officer, and (b) the deputy presiding officer.

(2) The offices specified in subsection (1) shall be known by such titles as the standing orders may provide (but are referred to in this Act as the presiding officer and the deputy presiding officer)."

Again, that seems to be making an awful meal of saying that the assembly in Wales and the parliament in Scotland may well decide to call the person the Speaker. But we have precedent already because the Northern Ireland Assembly, unlike these other two, is up and running and I have in my hand a letter with beautiful headed paper from the special adviser to the Speaker. The draft Committee on Standing Orders in the Northern Ireland Assembly provides in paragraph 2 that the presiding officer of the Assembly shall be called Mr Speaker or Madam Speaker and shall be so addressed by Members in all proceedings of the Assembly and shall be so designated in all professional communications. I therefore cannot understand why we are being told what titles we must have here. It should be left to the Scottish parliament.
Look at what is happening in Northern Ireland. They have a Prime Minister, and a Deputy Prime Minister. Mr. Seamus Mallon could not possibly be called Deputy First Minister or, worse, Second Minister. He is called Deputy Prime Minister. Common sense prevails. The Scottish Parliament could decide to use the word "Speaker". As the noble Lord said, it is commonly used throughout the Commonwealth and the remainder of the world. He could be the president; or the convenor, a very good Scottish name. But for goodness sake, why do we not leave it to the parliament to decide?
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, perhaps I may join with the views of my noble friend Lord Mackay and the noble Lord, Lord Steel. The Government have to accept that what they say is what will happen. There is no way of avoiding this. There will be a speaker and that is that. I do not know of any
1670
person, other than the official who carries out general election or by-election responsibilities, who calls himself a presiding officer.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, mentioned "convenor". That is a good Scottish word. However, it perhaps implies a leader rather than an impartial chairman, which is what the speaker has to be. It would be far better for the Government to accept that "Speaker" will be the terminology in Scotland, as indeed is the word Prime Minister. Whether the Government like it or not, that is what will happen, so we may as well accept it now rather than continue to procrastinate about their providing a better term than "presiding officer". It just will not happen. I hope that the Government will see sense in the amendments.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question on Amendment No. 143, about the words "Scottish Minister". I have never been a Member of another place, but I have always considered from my experience in Parliament that the senior person has usually been referred to as the Secretary of State. Might the title "Secretary of Home Affairs" in respect of the Scottish Parliament be better than the "Scottish Minister for Home Affairs"? I put that forward because I believe that there is something to be said to Amendment No. 143. Perhaps wrongly, I have always felt that a Minister is subordinate to a Secretary of State.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, in order to put everyone out of any agony, I have to say that the Government cannot accept these amendments, which attempt to amend the titles given to certain officers by the Bill. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, replaces the title of "Presiding Officer" with that of "Speaker". All these amendments are to that end. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, goes a step further and seeks to give the parliament the power to change the titles of various offices, including those of the First Minister and other Scottish Ministers.
By now, noble Lords know well the Government's views on this issue. They are well known. At this late hour I do not intend to rehearse them all at great length. We think that it is important for the sake of legislative certainty and consistency in the law throughout the United Kingdom that the Bill prescribes the titles from the outset.
Noble Lords will agree that it is important that everyone is clear exactly who is being referred to in this legislation, in future legislation and in other formal documents. This will ensure that there is no doubt about who should be carrying out any duties provided for in the Bill. By prescribing simple and straightforward titles, we hope to ensure there is no confusion between offices and positions, so everyone knows where they stand and what are their responsibilities.
The Government believe that these titles are clear and unambiguous and suit the purpose. Perhaps they may lack some of the poetry and historical resonance of the other titles with which noble Lords are familiar. However, we are creating a new parliament, so why should there not be new titles? Indeed, we make no

1671
secret of the fact that we want to avoid any risk of confusion with the established titles used at Westminster and for Ministers in the UK Government.
Much has been made of the unfamiliarity of the titles we are using, but I would submit that that position is changing daily. The titles in the Bill are those that were used in the White Paper and are becoming familiar to people in Scotland and beyond. While they are distinctive from titles used in the UK Government, they are consistent with the titles used in other devolved administrations. For example, the Northern Ireland Bill provides for a presiding officer. That Assembly will also have a First Minister.
Perhaps I may answer some of the points made mainly by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. Clause 14 of the Northern Ireland Bill provides for a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister. These terms have been much in use in the press, especially in the past week. I heard the term First Minister in connection with Mr. Trimble and Deputy First Minister in connection with Mr. Mallon. Therefore, I do not accept that they are not being used in Northern Ireland.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Baroness, I quoted from the standing orders of the Assembly, which clearly refer to the Speaker.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I was about to deal with that point. I was talking about the fact that the title Deputy First Minister has recently been used consistently in the media.
The noble Lord asked why we were not providing the Scottish parliament with the same flexibility as the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but the story is not quite the same as he told it—and it is still unfolding. Clause 31 of the Northern Ireland Bill provides for the election of a presiding officer and the initial standing orders prepared by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland refer to a presiding officer. Therefore, the Government are completely consistent.
It is the case perhaps that the Members of the Assembly who are involved in preparing its standing orders are considering using a different title for the presiding officer. That may be a result of electing Members before they have the power. The Bill has not been passed and we will have to wait and see what happens.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, with respect, we do not have to wait and see what happens. We know what has happened. The fact is that the committee on standing orders has stated that the presiding officer shall be called Mr. Speaker. He is being called Mr. Speaker in the Assembly, which is already meeting. I have in my hand a piece of notepaper which refers to the Speaker.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, with respect, the Assembly is not up and running: it is as a result of having Members elected to the Assembly
1672
before the legislation is in place. I am saying only that we will have to wait and see what happens. The initial standing orders prepared by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland use the title presiding officer. That is for another day and for other people to sort out. We will then see the result.
I am saying to the noble Lord that it is not an established fact that the presiding officer is being called the Speaker in the Northern Ireland Assembly; it really is not.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, the Welsh Bill, which we passed in this House, provides that the assembly shall be known by such titles as the standing orders may provide. It is left to the Welsh assembly so why cannot it be left to the Scottish parliament?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we have switched from the Northern Ireland Bill to the Government of Wales Act and I will deal with that. The Government of Wales Act has a different approach. That Act also prescribes titles for the first secretary and assembly secretaries. It also prescribes the names of some of the assembly's committees. It allows the standing orders to prescribe a different title for the presiding officer and the deputy presiding officer, but I understand that the national assembly advisory group has recommended that the titles should be presiding officer and deputy presiding officers. This will be specified in the standing orders of the assembly, although it can amend them with a two-thirds majority. I do not know why this is so puzzling. We have never said that the Scotland Bill was an exact parallel with the Welsh Act. There are many places where there a great number of differences.
It is my clear impression, unlike that given by some noble Lords opposite, that the media have been very quick to take up the new titles in Scotland. They were certainly picked up very quickly in Northern Ireland, where there is already a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister. The titles are in use. They are being quickly accepted by the public and the media. I am sure that we can expect exactly the same degree of familiarity in Scotland once these offices are occupied.
I believe that those are the main points raised by noble Lords. We have tried to make clear that we are concerned with the certainty that prescription brings, not only in terms of legal clarity and public recognition in Scotland, but also in the rest of the United Kingdom. That outweighs the benefits of the parliament being able to change them. We have tried to strike a balance throughout the Bill between prescription and flexibility. Our general approach has been to try to prescribe the absolute minimum. It is not always easy to agree where that line should be drawn. This is one area where we consider it very important that there should be no vagueness or confusion. Therefore, I ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suppose that the length of the speaking note was in inverse proportion to the content of the argument. I believe that it must have been written by an official who

1673
left the employ of the Scottish Office at five o'clock today and wants his or her own back on the Minister for something. I cannot believe that for the past few minutes I have been listening to such a vigorous defence of such a small point. One would have thought that I was asking the Minister to untangle the whole of this Bill, such was the rigorousness of the defence. I must be missing something about the significance of my amendments. There must be something really deep seated behind them that I and the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, have failed to see. I thought that the noble Lord had game, set and match when he read out the letter from Northern Ireland, but it appears that his eyes deceive him and he is unable to match the words that he sees to the words he speaks.
I shall be blunt with the Minister. I thought it was the poorest of poor replies. It is not her fault. She was put up to it by people who, for reasons that I know not, are determined that the Scottish parliament shall not have the same kind of status as regards names as every other parliament has in the English-speaking world. It seems to me that the Labour Party, having decided on a Scottish parliament, is now trying to devalue it. That is what the Government's argument is about.
I shall study the Northern Ireland Bill. I shall talk to my noble friend Lord Cope. I shall look at the Welsh legislation and the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, has. I think that he and I may get together at Third Reading. If we do that, I shall be inviting my noble friends, if the Government do not change their mind on this matter, to vote against them and for an amendment at the very least to give the Scottish parliament the power to make its own decisions about its names. What staggers me is that the Government will not even allow it to do that. I believe that we shall return to this at Third Reading after discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I cannot believe that we are going to occupy time at Third Reading on this issue again. I put a simple question: what happens if the Scottish parliament, in its standing orders, does what the others have done and rules that the person presiding over it shall be called The Speaker? What are the Government going to do about it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, unfortunately, it is Report stage and it is quite difficult. The Minister may wish to intervene. What will happen if the Scottish parliament decides to set up standing orders that run counter to the Act? Can someone answer? No one is going to do so. This issue is of great importance for the status of the parliament. I am amazed at the argument and I will leave it at that. I suspect that we shall return to it, if only to see whether we shall hear the same arguments again, whether better arguments will be brought forward or whether the Government will allow the parliament to do its own thing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 71.
Page 9, line 12, at end insert—
("() No two of the Presiding Officer and his two deputies may be members of the same political party.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 71. I am not going to say anything because the Government have tabled Amendment No. 90, which is a linked amendment. I think I am going to achieve my third little victory of the evening.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is almost a hat-trick—but not quite. There is a slight difference between us. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, would require the three posts to be held by nominees of different parties; the government amendment requires at least two parties represented in the three posts.
That is for a purely practical reason. We took the view that the possibility could arise in a situation where you had, for instance, two large parties and two small parties; the small parties may not want to tie up one of their members in a virtually non-active role. My amendment is tabled to cope with that situation. It does not preclude all three posts being held by nominees of different parties; it just does not require it because of that slight possibility. I hope that at this stage the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. We shall concentrate on Amendment No. 90 later.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the difference between our amendments. His amendment goes most of the way. My only slight concern is that if we have a coalition the two parties in the coalition could mop up all three posts. I think that would be a breach of at least the intent and the spirit behind the amendment. I think the Minister, if I may put these words into his mouth, is agreeing from a sedentary position that that would be against the spirit of his amendment.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. In a coalition situation it would be a breach of the spirit of the amendment if the two coalition parties took the whole lot. I recognise that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. It would be very difficult to write those kind of circumstances into the legislation. We have made progress and I am grateful to the Minister both for tabling his amendment and for his assurances from the Dispatch Box about the Government's intention behind the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 72 to 78 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 9, line 28, at end insert—
("() The validity of any act of the Presiding Officer or a deputy is not affected by any defect in his election.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now begin to turn to an issue which has been of concern to your Lordships' House as we have discussed this Bill through Committee. I refer to the degree of protection afforded to the parliament. We raise it here initially in a relatively modest way. It is dealt with elsewhere, after Clause 36, by Amendment No. 138 which stands in my name. That is a more substantive and substantial issue.
We were particularly struck during earlier debates on this subject by the strength of feeling on all sides of the House that the parliament should be able to go about its business without undue interruption from the courts. We took the message from that that perhaps the Bill did not say quite enough on that score. This group of amendments is the consequence of our further consideration of this point. Amendment No. 138 takes the protection argument further. We think it would be sensible to ensure that the validity of the acts of the various office holders cannot be questioned because of some defect in their appointment; in particular, any defect in any parliamentary proceedings which have to be followed before the relevant appointment.
We have provided such protection for the presiding officer and his deputies, members of the Scottish executive and junior Ministers and the auditor-general. We have also taken the opportunity to recast the provision already in Clause 27(5) to make it quite clear that the intention there is to ensure that an Act of the parliament is not affected by any validity in the proceedings leading to its enactment. As I said, this is the first stage in trying to deal with the problems of protection of the proceedings of the parliament and to avoid undue interference by the courts in the affairs of the parliament. We shall return to these points on a later amendment. This is the beginning. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I very much welcome this amendment and the other amendments with which it is grouped. For reasons which I shall explain at a later stage of Report, I do not feel that they go far enough, but I have no doubt that the amendments are all sensible and welcome. No objection is offered to any one of them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 10, line 7, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 10, line 16, leave out ("virtue of") and insert ("or under").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor and technical amendment to ensure consistency of drafting throughout the Bill, particularly in Clause 60(4). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 62, line 35, leave out ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish also, with the leave of the House, to speak to Amendments Nos. 83 to 86.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 provides that a person who is appointed to be a member of the SPCB under Clause 20 will cease to hold office when one of three sets of circumstances applies. These are where another member of the Scottish parliament is appointed in his place, where he resigns or where he ceases to be a member of the Scottish parliament otherwise than by virtue of dissolution. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 is to make express provision for the parliament to be able to remove a member of the board from office. This would be by resolution of the parliament and is consistent with the express provisions made for the removal from office of the presiding officer and his deputies.
Amendment No. 84 is a technical amendment in relation to pension provisions for staff of the parliament. The purpose of Amendment No. 85 is to clarify that the SPCB will be able to charge for goods and services provided in performing its functions. For example, such a function could include the provision of catering facilities for members. The purpose of Amendment No. 86 is to make provision for the SPCB to be able to sell goods such as souvenirs to the public and also to provide services to the public. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, we can once again accept all these amendments without question. I suppose it will be a matter of regret to the MSPs that they have to pay for their food and drink, which I understand to be the purpose of Amendment No. 85, and I wish the shops which will be set up under Amendment No. 86 well and hope that the House whisky is as successful there as it certainly is in your Lordships' House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 86:
Page 62, line 36, at end insert ("Or is removed from office by resolution of the Parliament.").
Page 63, line 14, leave out ("Accordingly,") and insert ("In particular,").
Page 63, line 23, at end insert—
("(aa) charging for goods or services,").
Page 63, line 26, at end insert—
("(2A) The corporation may sell goods or provide services, and may make arrangements for the sale of goods or provision of services, to the public.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 63, line 37, leave out ("proceedings") and insert ("act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas moved Amendment No. 88:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—

RECORD AND BROADCASTING OF PROCEEDINGS
(" .—(1) The proceedings shall be recorded by any means which the Parliament thinks fit.
(2) The record made under subsection (1) above shall be capable of being referred to in any proceedings for the purpose of clarifying any ambiguity or lack of clarity in an Act of the Scottish Parliament or any subordinate legislation passed by the Parliament.
(3) The proceedings may be broadcast in any way which the Parliament may agree.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment allows for the recording and broadcasting of the proceedings of the Scottish parliament. It provides also authority to allow the rule in Pepper v. Hart, which was in [1993] 1 All England Reports on page 42 regarding references in court to the parliamentary record.
Until that case was decided, the parliamentary record of Hansard could not be referred to for the purposes of explaining an Act of Parliament. That case relaxed the rule and allowed reference to parliamentary materials where the legislation was ambiguous, obscure or led to an absurdity; or where the material relied on consisted of one or more statements by a Minister or other promoter of the Bill together, if necessary, to understand such statements and their effect; and where the statements relied on are clear.
That case was binding on Scotland in respect of Hansard reports alone. Although it is very likely to be extended by analogy to the Scottish parliamentary record, that application will not be automatic and would require to be raised in a case or decided upon by a court.
The consultative steering committee group secretariat hinted at that in its departmental proposals regarding the options for reporting the parliament's procedures when it stated:
"The courts can in certain circumstances refer to Hansard in construing legislation and the Official Report in Scotland may also be used in a similar way post-devolution".
It is surely more appropriate for legislation to deal with that at this point. This amendment is necessary to extend the advantages of Pepper v. Hart to the Scottish parliamentary record and to make absolutely certain that broadcasting and recording of the proceedings of parliament are admissible in court in order to explain what the intention of the legislation both was and is. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: This matter was debated in Committee on 14th July. The view was then expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, that there may be doubt whether it was necessary to have such a provision on the face of the Bill if the Government could give an assurance that they expected that the court, in the interpretation of any Act, could refer to the proceedings in the Scottish parliament in the same way that courts refer to proceedings under Pepper v. Hart under the present regime.
1678
In reply, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate indicated that that was the Government's position. However, he went on to say:
"The question of interpretation of the Acts of the Scottish parliament will be a matter for the courts. The Scottish parliament itself may pass legislation similar to the Interpretation Act to assist in the interpretation of Acts of Parliament. But unless such provision is made by the Scottish parliament about construing a particular Act or Acts of Parliament, in my submission, the courts would apply the same canons of construction, including reference to the proceedings in parliament in cases of ambiguity. I see no reason for any difference between construing an Act of the Scottish parliament by the courts and an Act of the UK Parliament. In certain limited circumstances, it may well be appropriate to look at the proceedings in the Scottish parliament".—[Official Report, 14/7/98; col. 248.]
Reflecting on what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said on that occasion, a thought struck me as to whether it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament to enact legislation indicating how the English courts or the Northern Irish courts could construe Acts of the Scottish parliament because having regard to the provisions of Clause 28(2)(a), there may be an argument that such an interpretation Act would form part of a law of a country or territory other than Scotland.
In reflecting on that, it seemed that there may well be force in the concern that the Law Society expressed, which is along the following lines: that, even though we would expect the Pepper v. Hart approach to be followed by courts throughout the United Kingdom, nevertheless there may be some sense in putting the middle part of this amendment on the face of the Bill. Subsection (1) would be necessary to make subsection (2) work, and subsection (3) would be a matter for the Scottish parliament itself. I have no strong view on that one way or the other, though personally I would wish the proceedings to be broadcast.
I am concerned that, while subsection (2) may come to pass, lying behind this there may be a matter of concern that, if the Scottish parliament is to be given powers to require the Scottish courts to interpret legislation in a way different from the canons of construction that would apply to UK statutes, that could be extended extra-territorially into England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It does not arise directly from the amendment but seems to lie behind it and I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, his colleagues and officials, to reflect on that before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before the Minister replies, perhaps I may say that I feel from what has been said that we must protect the Scottish parliament from being challenged over any question in court. That is where I feel that this is a necessary amendment and am extremely glad that it was tabled.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, we do not consider the amendment to be necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, pointed out, the effect of the amendment would be to put into the Bill a provision to allow the record of proceedings to be relied upon by the courts in a Pepper v. Hart-type situation where there is ambiguity in the legislation.

1679
Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. The position would be that the Scottish parliament could not legislate to have effect south of the Border; it could not affect the English law. However, English courts may well wish to interpret Scottish legislation in certain situations and would apply the canons of construction that apply to the interpretation of legislation of the UK Parliament, including the application of Pepper v. Hart.
In relation to the Scottish courts, the position is as I stated on the last occasion when this was discussed, in July, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, raised this matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, referred to the passage in Hansard where I set out the position. My position quite clearly is that, in the absence of any legislation by the Scottish parliament affecting interpretation of Scottish legislation, the Scottish courts would follow the canons of construction and would apply the principles of Pepper v. Hart in appropriate cases. Of course the Scottish parliament could legislate to indicate that that was to be excluded in the interpretation of the legislation by the Scottish courts, but that would be entirely a matter for the parliament, just as this Parliament could legislate to change the rules in relation to Pepper v. Hart.
Essentially, what I am saying is that the question of construction of statutes is for the appropriate courts. They would apply the canons of construction with which they are familiar unless they were changed by legislation—either by the UK Parliament in relation to UK legislation or by the Scottish parliament in relation to Scottish legislation. But any interpretation Act of the Scottish parliament could only have effect in relation to Scottish courts. I trust that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I am puzzled that the Lord Advocate does not feel able to clarify the law in this connection as it appears that he agrees with the principles laid down in Pepper v. Hart for the rest of the United Kingdom—certainly for England—and I do not see what objection there can be to clarifying this point in legislation. A Scots parliament could obviously change the law in the future in this connection if it so wished, and I do not see what objection in principle the Lord Advocate can have. If my noble friend agrees, perhaps we can return to this on Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Standing orders—further provision]:
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 64, line 22, leave out from ("proceedings") to end of line 23 and insert—
("Withdrawal of rights and privileges
The standing orders may include provision for withdrawing from a member of the Parliament his rights and privileges as a member.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to explain the general principle behind Amendments Nos.
1680
89 and 91 to 100. I shall try to do so briefly. I know that this is a big group of amendments, but it takes very much into account our discussions in Committee. I should, of course, be happy to give noble Lords more information about the detail of any of the government amendments, should they wish it.
As I explained when we last debated this schedule in Committee, the Government want to ensure that the parliament puts in place a framework to regulate members' interests. I am sure that the electorate would expect no less. The White Paper made it clear that there would be "minimum requirements" in respect of, among other things, rules about members' pecuniary interests.
These amendments ensure that the parliament is under a basic duty to make provision for the regulation of its members' interests. The parliament will have to make provision for a register of interests that is published and publicly available and for its members to register their financial interests and to declare such interests before taking part in any proceedings of the parliament relating to that matter. The parliament will also be required to make provision prohibiting paid advocacy. These provisions are intended to ensure that all MSPs work in a properly regulated framework which ensures propriety in the conduct of the parliament's business.
Previously, the parliament was to be required to make provision for this in its standing orders. We have been looking carefully at this provision and considered that this could restrict the parliament in what it was able to do; for example, the parliament may want to make provision about a code of conduct for MSPs. This could go beyond what MSPs did in the proceedings of the parliament. That would be outwith the scope of standing orders. These amendments give the parliament the flexibility to address such situations.
Moreover, when this House last considered this schedule, a number of noble and learned Lords expressed concern that provisions relating to criminal offences would be defined in standing orders rather than in legislation. These amendments address that concern. They provide that the parliament must make provision by, or under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament (ASP). That is not to say that standing orders cannot be used at all in the context of provisions about members' interests. It is anticipated that the core provisions would be in the ASP or subordinate legislation under it. But there is no reason why certain procedural matters for example could not be left to standing orders.
We believe that these amendments will assist the parliament in developing a robust and rigorous approach to such matters and I urge noble Lords to support them. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be pleased and probably slightly grateful to hear that we welcome these amendments. They take into account some of the problems raised in

1681
Committee. We on these Benches are grateful to the Government for that and are content to let the amendments pass.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): My Lords, you will recall that Amendment No. 90 has already been spoken to. With the leave of the House, I shall put Amendments Nos. 89 to 100 en bloc.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, before that is done, perhaps I may put one small point on Amendment No. 90. As it refers to the presiding officer, I would like to add one sentence to what I said before about the situation in Northern Ireland because I should have added that the provision that I quoted—I hope that the noble Baroness is listening to me—is a direct lift from the standing orders of the 1973 Northern Ireland Assembly. In addition, I am told that the Minister of State, in the course of official consultations, has confirmed that the term "presiding officer" is a legal one and that it is entirely a matter for the assembly to determine what the presiding officer is actually called. Although I agree that we should pass Amendment No. 90, we cannot leave a situation where the Welsh assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly can call the person who presides over them whatever they like while the Scottish parliament must do what it is told by this place. That is not a tenable position and it must be put right before we go further with the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 64, line 34, at end insert—
("The Presiding Officer and deputies
The standing orders shall include provision for ensuring that the Presiding Officer and deputies do not all represent the same political party.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Members' interests]:
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendments Nos. 91 to 100:
Page 10, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 35 and insert—
("(1) Provision shall be made for a register of interests of members of the Parliament and for the register to be published and made available for public inspection.
(2) Provision shall be made—

(a) requiring members of the Parliament to register in that register financial interests (including benefits in kind), as defined for the purposes of this paragraph,

(b) requiring that any member of the Parliament who has a financial interest (including benefits in kind), as defined for the purposes of this paragraph,").

Page 10, line 38, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 39 and insert ("Provision made in pursuance of subsection (2) shall include any provision which the Parliament considers appropriate").
Page 10, line 40, leave out from ("with") to second ("in") in line 41 and insert ("an interest defined for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) or (b)").
Page 10, line 43, leave out ("Standing orders shall include provision") and insert ("Provision shall be made").
Page 11, line 3, leave out ("standing orders") and insert ("provision").
Page 11, line 8, leave out ("Standing orders may include provision") and insert ("Provision made in pursuance of subsections (2) to (4) shall include any provision which the Parliament considers appropriate").
Page 11, line 10, leave out from ("of') to end of line 11 and insert ("those subsections").
Page 11, line 15, leave out ("subsections (1) to") and insert ("subsection (2) or").
Page 11, line 20, after ("section,") insert—

("(a) "provision" means provision made by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament, and

(b)").

Transpose Clause 22 to after Clause 36.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment. The Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.

  European Commission: Prompt Payment to Small Businesses
  European Commission: Prompt Payment to Small Businesses
  M.1, Junctions 4 to 5: Road Surface
  M.1, Junctions 4 to 5: Road Surface
  Cycling and Walking: Local Authority Provision
  Cycling and Walking: Local Authority Provision
  Greater London Authority: Location
  Greater London Authority: Location
  Arms Exports: Licensing Criteria
  Arms Exports: Licensing Criteria
  Slovenia: Arms Exports
  Slovenia: Arms Exports
  Naval Service: Minimum Age of Deployment
  Naval Service: Minimum Age of Deployment
  Government Departments: US Computer Equipment
  Government Departments: US Computer Equipment
  New Zealand: Agricultural Subsidy Policy
  New Zealand: Agricultural Subsidy Policy
  Genetically Modified Plant Varieties: Seed Listing
  Genetically Modified Plant Varieties: Seed Listing
  Glufosinate Ammonium: Use as Pesticides
  Glufosinate Ammonium: Use as Pesticides