Sitting of 27 October 1998

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

    Visitors' Visas (Bombay)
    Mr. Keith Vaz: If he will make a statement on the issuing of visitors' visas in Bombay. [54285]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): In 1997, the visa section in the British deputy high commission in Bombay issued 43,318 visit visas. Up to 15 October this year, the visa section had issued 45,339 visit visas. Ninety-two per cent. of the straightforward visit visa applications are being issued within 24 hours. Currently, applicants are receiving their visas within two hours of presenting their application.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister pass on hon. Members' thanks to Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean for the changes that she introduced to the visa system to make it more efficient? However, as he must be aware, a large proportion of applications made in Bombay come from people who live in the Gujarat. Will he meet me and other interested colleagues to see whether visa facilities might be made available in Ahmadabad? Such facilities would greatly improve the position, lessening the pressure on Bombay and making the process much easier and much cheaper for applicants.
    Mr. Fatchett: I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend's best wishes to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. She will be delighted to hear those words from my hon. Friend. I know that he keeps her busy on immigration and visa matters, so his words of support will be well received.
    On the second point that my hon. Friend raised, I would be happy to meet him and his colleagues, although he must realise that, even to such a distinguished Member as himself, I cannot make a commitment at the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Eric Forth: If a visa application were made in Bombay by, let us say, a former dictator or former terrorist, would such an application be
    136
    sympathetically considered by the Minister, and if it were granted, would it carry with it any immunity from rogue applications for extradition from this country?
    Mr. Fatchett: Any visa application made at the deputy high commission in Bombay will be dealt with according to the immigration rules.

    Sudan
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What progress has been made towards a permanent peaceful settlement in Sudan. [54286]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): The UK has long supported the Intergovernmental Authority on Development peace process as the best chance to bring an end to the civil war in Sudan through a negotiated settlement. With a mandate from the IGAD partners forum, I visited Nairobi and Khartoum from 13 to 16 July to discuss the possibilities of securing a break in the fighting in the areas most affected by the humanitarian crisis.
    Subsequently, the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army announced a three-month ceasefire in Bahr al Ghazal. Following further discussions on 9 and 12 October respectively, the SPLA and the Government of Sudan agreed to extend the ceasefire in Bahr al Ghazal by a further three months. We shall continue to be active in trying to find a long-term solution to the conflict.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's response. He will be aware that, today, the aid organisations warned us that we might have a greater catastrophe than in Kosovo if something did not happen shortly to help people in Sudan. Is there any more recent information that would enable the Foreign Office to confirm the claims of the American State Department, corroborated by the Ministry of Defence, that the factory in Khartoum was a chemical factory—or does the Minister agree that the bombing of that factory may not have helped to advance the peace process in Sudan?
    Mr. Fatchett: I very much respect the hon. Gentleman's interest in the issue of Sudan. He is right to say that the only way to deal with the long-term humanitarian problem is to achieve a political solution. That is one reason why I took a more active interest in the matter in the summer of this year. I hope that the United Kingdom, with others, can continue to play a more active role.
    On chemical weapons in Sudan, the best way to verify the situation would be for Sudan to sign the chemical weapons convention.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I express my appreciation of the efforts that the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have made to bring about a settlement in Sudan? Our concerns are with the women and children in southern Sudan, who are suffering the most as a result of the conflict in their country; the recent bombing by America did not help the situation. However, will my hon. Friend assure the House that he

    137
    will do all that he can to bring about a negotiated settlement to the problems in Sudan, so that we can be of more help to the people there who are suffering as a result of the conflict in their country?
    Mr. Fatchett: Sadly, we are seeing a continuation of the civil war that has been going on for several decades. It is clear that the only way forward is to find a peaceful solution. There cannot be a military solution to the civil war in Sudan. We must encourage the parties to get to the negotiating table. That is why we support the IGAD process, and why the United Kingdom is keen to play any part we can to assist the negotiations and to help towards peace. As my hon. Friend says, that is the best way to give a long-term future to the people of Sudan, who have suffered too much and for too long.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: May I thank the Minister for the work that he has put into trying to find a solution to the civil war in Sudan? In view of the news that Sudan has resumed bombing in the south, and the fact that, other than at Bahr al Ghazal, the fighting has intensified in recent weeks, could he find a way to bring about the support of the United States and the United Nations for urgent action to prevent the continuation of the tragic starvation in that area?
    Mr. Fatchett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about my role. It was important in July to look for a way to achieve a partial ceasefire. It is temporary and covers only part of Sudan, but, for the many thousands of people in that area, it gives slight relief and the possibility of a longer life. We must extend those principles to the whole of Sudan and get the parties together. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the United States and the United Nations. The entire international community has neglected Sudan for too long and we have a responsibility to do what we can.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on Government plans to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. [54287]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): Five decades after the universal declaration of human rights was signed, it remains an inspiration and a common standard of achievement for all nations and all peoples.
    We are celebrating the anniversary with other Governments, the United Nations Association and non-governmental organisations. On the occasion of the anniversary, we have introduced a series of measures to create a closer dialogue between the Foreign Office and NGOs on human rights.
    Mr. Gapes: I welcome the action that the Government have taken so far. Does my hon. Friend agree that the universal declaration of human rights is just that: universal? It should therefore apply to all countries, including Malaysia, China, India and Pakistan and countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and north America. [Interruption.] Will my hon. Friend
    138
    reassure me that this Government, unlike their predecessor, will adopt universal standards of human rights and emphasise the importance of the United Nations and its institutions?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in doing that. I was rather sorry to hear some barracking from the Opposition Benches about the universal declaration. That highlights the difference between the present Government and their predecessors in their commitment to human rights issues. In every part of the world the universal declaration has played a significant role in improving observance of and respect for human rights, but in every part of the world there are still areas where improvements are needed. Perhaps the finest way in which we could mark the 50th anniversary would be to ensure that the universal declaration is indeed universal.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: When making his plans for the anniversary of the declaration of human rights, will the Minister recall that the last Conservative Government had an excellent record on human rights, and that last year and every year for the past 10 years the Conservative Government co-sponsored a UN resolution calling for an improvement in China's human rights situation? Can the Minister explain why his Government have failed to renew that resolution? Does that failure to renew not confirm the accusation by Wei Jingsheng, probably the most famous Chinese prisoner of conscience, that the present Foreign Secretary is two-faced, and show that Labour's supposedly ethical foreign policy is hypocritical and spineless? Will the Government support that resolution when it comes back to the next UN meeting?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is a very good try, but it is a shame that the Conservatives must make human rights a matter of party politics. The reality is that, when the resolution went through, the European Union nations were split. The Conservatives know that. Under the present Government and the present Foreign Secretary, we have a united European Union position with respect to China. We have seen progress in China, and Mary Robinson and the Prime Minister recently visited that country. Unlike the situation under the previous Government, the human rights debate with China is now on-going.
    Ann Clwyd: Is my hon. Friend aware of newspaper reports today that suggest that the Foundation for Human Rights in the EU will close at the end of the year? That is worrying news for non-governmental organisations all over the world, including Redress Trust, the London-based charity that, among other things, deals with the victims of torture in Chile. That organisation is likely to lose up to half its funding. Will my hon. Friend act as a matter of urgency to ensure that that does not occur?
    Mr. Lloyd: There can be no doubt that NGOs play an important role in maintaining respect for human rights worldwide. It is sad to see a threat to any legitimate organisation operating in that area. I do not know about the particular events leading to the situation that my hon. Friend describes, but I shall take her remarks on board and inquire as to the proper position and how the problem may be resolved.

    Kosovo
    Jackie Ballard: If he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [54288]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Since my statement to the House last week, Britain has remained fully engaged in efforts to implement the Holbrooke package. At the weekend, after hours of intensive negotiation, President Milosevic gave a detailed commitment to reduce the levels of army, police and heavy weapons in Kosovo to their levels before the conflict. Diplomatic observers in Kosovo report that several thousand security troops have left over the past 24 hours.
    There has been a significant return of refugees to settlements in the valleys, and the UN estimates that numbers on the hillsides have fallen from 50,000 to around 10,000.
    President Milosevic has shown some progress towards meeting the demands of the Security Council, but there is a long way still to go before we secure a self-governing Kosovo with its own elected leadership and free from repression from Belgrade.
    Jackie Ballard: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply. I am sure that everyone hopes that President Milosevic will continue to pull back from the brink. I am also pleased to hear that thousands of refugees are returning to the valleys. However, anxiety remains about what the international community intends to do to ensure safe and unrestricted access to Kosovo throughout the winter months in order to provide humanitarian aid to the refugees and prevent thousands of deaths from illness and starvation.
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to express concern about the position of the refugees. So many of their homes have been destroyed by the actions of the Serb security forces that, although returning from the hillsides may take them nearer to where they once lived, it will not necessarily provide them with shelter. The refugees are still at risk from cold, hunger and disease.
    That is why we attach the highest importance to ensuring that humanitarian relief gets through to the refugees and why Britain, in particular, in the past week has provided grants to Care International for winter goods, to Oxfam for winter shelter and to Médecin sans Frontiéres for mobile clinics. We shall continue to play a leading role in the international effort.
    Mr. Michael Trend: Is the Foreign Secretary aware, that over the weekend, Alastair Campbell briefed the press in Austria? I have a transcript of that briefing, which said that the Prime Minister would tell the informal summit that
    "Kosovo showed us far too often to be dithering and disunited".
    To ensure that the Government can no longer be accused of prolonging that dithering, will the Foreign Secretary inform the House for how long NATO forces will be maintained at their current and commendable state of readiness?
    Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Britain played a leading part in building unity both in NATO and
    140
    in the contact group. If this country had not shown that leadership in securing agreement for the diplomatic track in the contact group—backed by a credible threat from NATO—we would not have made the progress that I have just reported to the House.
    The North Atlantic Council is meeting to hear reports about progress on compliance, and I think that it is likely to conclude that Milosevic has made progress but has a long way to go yet. Therefore, I think that it is quite likely that we will resolve that we must keep our guard up. It is not yet the time to let that guard down.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: If, as appears possible, it may not now be necessary to use the attack aircraft of NATO's air forces, would it not make sense to use NATO's transport aircraft to help to meet the priorities already established by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? Is it not the case that, in communities that were first razed to the ground and then looted, it is not only food and blankets that are required but medicines, equipment to restore essential services such as electricity and water, agricultural implements and building materials? If necessary, should we not have a Kosovo airlift to prevent the humanitarian disaster which we all dread?
    Mr. Cook: I can certainly assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that, if the United Nations should approach us for support in the transport of goods to Kosovo, we would be very willing to consider that sympathetically because we would not want essential goods not to get through because of the lack of logistics. One of the reasons that we are anxious to get the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe verification mission up and running on the ground is precisely so that we can have those members of that team in every village and town, not merely to stand by and observe but robustly to intervene and make sure that they broker access to humanitarian goods and that the people of Kosovo are given the chance to come through this winter.

    Chile
    Mr. Eric Pickles: If he will make a statement on the UK's relations with Chile. [54290]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I met the Deputy Foreign Minister of Chile, Mr. Mariano Fernandez, on Saturday. I explained to the Minister that the Government of Britain had no power to intervene in the court proceedings concerning Senator Pinochet, and nor would it be proper for us to direct the police in the execution of a magistrate's warrant. I also stressed to Mr. Fernandez the determination of the Government to prevent these legal procedures from undermining our excellent relations with the democratic Government of Chile.
    Mr. Pickles: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the people of Chile on the smooth transition from dictatorship to a robust democracy? Does he agree that one of the most remarkable features of that is that opponents of the former regime worked side by side with people who supported it, forswearing individual

    141
    acts of violence, to build a strong and robust democracy in Chile? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that that balance between opponent and supporter is a fine one and that outside influences are not welcome in that process? If he agrees with that, has he had an opportunity over the past fortnight to pass on that view to other members of the Government?
    Mr. Cook: Of course there is a fine balance in direct conciliation and accommodation in Chile. That fine balance includes 14 current prosecutions outstanding against Senator Pinochet.
    Of course we warmly welcome the progress of Chile and many other countries of Latin America towards democracy. One of the important founding stones of democracy is the rule of law and the clear principle that politicians should not decide who is arrested and who is not, and it is that principle that we are upholding in Britain.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: I have never had tea and sympathy with General Pinochet, and, having visited Chile during the reign of terror in the early 1980s and seen the way in which the oldest and longest democracy in Latin America had had its democracy subverted, I would never seek to parley with that gentleman. However, our views are surely irrelevant: will my right hon. Friend confirm that, once a proper application had been made under the Extradition Act 1989, we had no option but to let due process proceed?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. One of the most curious features of the past few days and the comments on them is the idea that the Bow Street magistrates issuing a warrant and the Metropolitan police executing it somehow adds up to a left-wing conspiracy. The Government are clear: due process of law must be carried out and it must not be warped to fit anybody's political agenda.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Is it not correct that the handling of this arrest and the possible extradition of General Pinochet have been bedevilled by chaos and confusion throughout? Why have the Government still not established whether or not the Spanish Government, as opposed to one Spanish judge, are applying for his extradition? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Home Secretary had a discretion not to authorise the grant of a warrant and could at that point have taken into account many factors, including the implications of the arrest for the future of democracy in Chile?
    Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote to me last week saying that, if an extradition request were made, of course the normal processes and procedures should be followed. It is difficult to see that sentiment in the question that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just put to me. Of course we have had no contact on the question with the Spanish Government. It would be deeply improper to do so. The extradition request has been processed by entirely competent legal authority in Spain. It is for the Spanish authorities to decide whether they wish to withdraw it, not for us to decide whether we should ignore it. The Home Secretary was entirely proper in allowing the due process of law to
    142
    proceed. There was a time when the Conservative party would have prided itself on being the party of the rule of law. It is rather sad that it has now departed from that principle of our constitution.
    Mr. Howard: Does the Foreign Secretary not appreciate that the rule of law in this matter includes a discretion for the Home Secretary to take into account factors such as those that I mentioned, before authorising a warrant? On what conceivable basis does the Foreign Secretary allege that it would be improper to ask the Spanish Government whether they, as opposed to one judge, want General Pinochet to be extradited?
    Mr. Cook: It is a matter for the Spanish legal authorities to decide whether to proceed with this, just as it is a matter for the British courts to decide how to proceed on it. Of course, areas of discretion are available to the Home Secretary after due process and after the matter has been before the courts. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is really saying that there were occasions when, in secret, he squashed a warrant for extradition, he should tell the House when it was.

    European Union Enlargement
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What progress has been made in simplifying the process for those countries seeking to join the European Union. [54291]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The European Union agreed a clear and inclusive enlargement process at Luxembourg last year. Britain has played a key role in pushing forward that process, which was launched during our presidency. It remains on track, and will bring the applicant countries into the Union as soon as they are ready for the demands and the obligations of membership.
    On 9 November, the Commission will report on the progress made by all the countries seeking to join. The following day, substantive talks are due to start with the six applicants already in accession negotiations.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Following the Foreign Secretary's recent visit to Bulgaria and Romania, is there any progress to be reported on their meeting the criteria for membership?
    Ms Quin: Yes, indeed. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a useful visit, which included Bulgaria and Romania, and there is no doubt that the prospect of EU membership is a great stimulus in those countries to produce reforms. We welcome some of the progress that they have already made and look forward to further progress in due course.
    Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister accept that part of the process towards enlargement necessarily involves questions of democracy? Does she further accept that the whole process of proportional representation, as expressed by a leading politician in The Times on 16 October, clearly shows that proportional representation is regarded by those in the Czech Republic as unhealthy, inequitable and leading to the blackmail of the larger parties by the smaller parties, as in Israel, and

    143
    to dissatisfaction, as exists in New Zealand? Will the Minister therefore accept that, whether with regard to the Westminster system of democracy in Britain or the process of European elections, the whole concept in principle of proportional representation is objectionable, for the reasons that I gave?
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have forgotten what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Ms Quin: It certainly was an elaborate supplementary which took us some way away from the enlargement process. Despite that, however. I agree that democracy is a tremendously important—indeed, essential—part of the candidacy of any country for accession to the EU. But with regard to election systems, existing EU members have a variety of systems, and nothing in the enlargement process would alter that.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Has the Minister had an opportunity to consider the impact of the recent elections and referendum in Latvia and the general election in Slovakia? Does she agree that they justify including those countries in the fast-track process of enlargement, especially given that the Latvian impediment was its relationship with the Russian minority, which has been resolved by the consequences of the referendum result?
    Ms Quin: The application of each country needs to be regarded on its merits. Like my hon. Friend, I very much welcome the result of the referendum that took place in Latvia and the recent encouraging signs in the Slovakian election results. They show that coming closer to the European Union can stimulate democracy and respect for human rights and ethnic minorities. I very much welcome that.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the news that, during the past week, Greece has placed fighter planes in Cyprus for the first time ever, and that, in January, the Greek Cypriot Government intend to bring in Russian missiles manned by Russian personnel? Is the European Union wise to absorb those problems into the Union before a settlement in Cyprus?
    Ms Quin: We regard the accession process in Cyprus as an important factor in applying pressure for a settlement of the Cypriot problem and uniting the island. That is tremendously important. However, we do not want a build-up of weapons in a volatile part of the world, which is why we have expressed serious reservations about missiles in Cyprus.

    Agenda 2000
    Mr. Jeff Ennis: When he last met his European counterparts to discuss Agenda 2000 and enlargement. [54292]
    Ms Rosie Winterton: When he last met his European counterparts to discuss Agenda 2000 in relation to enlargement. [54299]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): I last met my European counterparts to discuss Agenda 2000 issues at yesterday's General Affairs Council in Luxembourg.
    Mr. Ennis: I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that the current gross domestic product per capita
    144
    in South Yorkshire is only 75 per cent. of the European average? Is she further aware that in my constituency that figure falls to 65 per cent? Does she agree that, if this country is successfully to regenerate the most economically deprived regions, it must negotiate extremely hard to try to maximise the amount of European regional assistance that comes to this country under Agenda 2000?
    Ms Quin: I very much support my hon. Friend's comments. We generally support the criterion of 75 per cent. of GDP as the threshold for European regional assistance. European funds have already been used to effect in regenerating certain areas of the British economy. We are keen to see that process continue, as it rebounds on the efforts of those regions to the credit of both Britain and the European Union.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the rail port in my constituency of Doncaster provides rail freight services from the north of England to Europe? Does she agree that, to protect the environment and regenerate areas like South Yorkshire, the development of European rail links should be a high priority in any discussions on Agenda 2000 and European Union enlargement?
    Ms Quin: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that transport infrastructure is a vital part of the economic development of a region. European transport links make a great deal of sense in the context of the European Union's structural funds and European efforts generally to promote economic development.
    Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister tell the House why so little progress is being made on the financial and other reforms which will be essential if the European Union is to be successfully enlarged? Is it because her Government, and other centre left Governments within the EU, are still obsessed with yesterday's backward-looking agenda of a Europe which is uniform, not diverse; rigid, not flexible; and deeper, not wider?
    Ms Quin: The basic premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is simply incorrect. Good progress is being made towards the Agenda 2000 timetable, as was evident from our discussions in Luxembourg yesterday, which ranged over all the issues involved in the negotiations, including financial and budgetary ones.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the Minister think that assurances given during enlargement negotiations can be kept to? I have in mind the assurances made by Spain, when it joined the European Union, about its treatment of Gibraltar. Spain is now attacking Gibraltar's fishing rights as well as its border rights, as always. Can she assure us that she takes these matters into account in the discussions on enlargement, and that the Spanish Government will be told, yet again, that they should keep to their assurances over Gibraltar?
    Ms Quin: It is certainly important that, in enlargement negotiations, undertakings that are given are implemented in practice. Indeed, a range of mechanisms has been put in place to make sure that the progress of existing

    145
    applicants can be monitored through all the different chapters of the accession negotiations. In respect of Gibraltar, the hon. Gentleman might like to know that we recently protested strongly about increased delays at the border. As a result, those delays have been greatly reduced.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: When my hon. Friend last met her European counterparts to discuss enlargement, was any attention given to the question of Cyprus being admitted to the European Union as an occupied country, in light of the view held by some of our EU partners that the idea of EU membership as a catalyst to a peace settlement appears to have failed?
    Ms Quin: In the General Affairs Council, we have said clearly that we believe that the accession negotiations regarding Cyprus remain an important pressure on reaching a settlement and reunifying the island. That is our view, and we have put it forward strongly. We believe that the accession negotiations represent a real opportunity to make progress, however difficult the problems are.

    European Union Enlargement
    Mr. Tim Boswell: If he will make a statement on progress in the EU enlargement process. [54293]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Britain negotiated the launch of the enlargement process during our presidency, and progress in the accession talks has been good. We expect that next month, we can move from the screening process to substantive negotiations with six of the candidate countries.
    Last week, I visited two other candidate countries—Bulgaria and Romania—whose Governments both expressed their warm appreciation of Britain's support for the enlargement of the European Union.
    Mr. Boswell: Enlargement in due course is clearly essential for the applicant countries, and much in the interests of this country and of existing member states.
    Mr. Cook indicated assent.
    Mr. Boswell: I am pleased to have the Foreign Secretary's acknowledgement of that. Would he resist firmly any further moves towards gratuitous deepening of the Community, on the ground that, if applicant countries already have enough difficulty keeping their footing through the existing acquis communautaire, any further impositions might put them out of their depth altogether?
    Mr. Cook: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point that we should remember that enlargement is also in the interest of the existing member states. It will make the European Union larger, give it greater potential for prosperity and greater clout in world trade talks, and enable us to deal with cross-border problems, such as the environment and cross-border crime. This is not simply a matter of altruism towards the applicant countries—it is in our interest, too—but it is not the case that the applicant countries would oppose what the hon. Gentleman referred
    146
    to as further deepening. They want to become members of a full, strong Europe, with integration where necessary and decentralisation wherever possible.
    Mr. Ian Pearson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the five eastern European accession countries, with 63 million people and a gross domestic product of about 400 billion ecu, represent a major addition to the European Union economy and a major opportunity for British companies to extend their home markets? Will he, in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry, review the substantial information that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has on markets and market opportunities in those countries, and ensure that it is available to British businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, because too few of them are approaching the FCO about such opportunities at the moment?
    Mr. Cook: I have just returned from Bulgaria and Romania. I was struck not only by the opportunity for investment and trade in those countries, but by their desperate need for that investment and trade. Enlargement offers us an economic opportunity, but we must recognise that we cannot maintain a Europe that, although no longer divided by an iron curtain, is divided into the rich nations of the European Union and the poor countries at our gates. That is not sustainable, and we shall suffer from the pressures from illegal migration, the drugs trade and other problems that come from poverty. It is in our interests to assist those countries to achieve our prosperity.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Does the Foreign Secretary really believe that deepening integration, increasing spending and moving towards tax harmonisation and a European army—all of which were agreed in Austria last weekend—will help the enlargement process? Is it not clear that there can be deepening or widening of the European Union, but not both? Does he accept that his statement in August that
    "Maastricht was a high water mark of integration"
    seems even more ludicrous now than it did then?
    Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot complain about the response in Kosovo and yet refuse to apply that lesson for Europe's security. That is exactly what the Prime Minister was drawing to the attention of the leaders of Europe when they met in Pörtschach.
    I am not sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to achieve any kind of Europe, but if he wants to build a Europe that is decentralised and that observes the principle of subsidiarity, he should welcome the fact that the debate on the future of Europe was started by Britain. We are focusing on achieving the right balance between decisions on cross-border issues that must be taken in Brussels and decisions on issues that are better taken within member states. The Government are promoting a balance between integration where necessary and decentralisation where possible.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's comments on enlargement. What assessment has been made of the challenges and

    147
    opportunities that enlargement will bring, and of the adequacy of existing EU structural funds? Decisions may need to be taken about extending the scope of such funds.
    Mr. Cook: There are substantial programmes to assist countries that are preparing for membership. The pre-accession funds are generous. Yesterday, in the General Affairs Council, we agreed on re-allocation as applicant countries become full members. Structural funds will be available to them as full members. That is why it is important that we proceed with the reform of not just the structural funds, but the common agricultural policy to ensure that we can afford enlargement and that the resources of the European Union go where they can best be used.

    Dubai
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about UK relations with Dubai. [54295]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): Our relations with Dubai are good. As an indicator of that, our trade statistics with Dubai show that in 1997, United Kingdom exports were worth more than £900 million.
    Mr. Swayne: The trade with Dubai affords tremendous opportunities for British business based on our expertise, experience and the competitiveness of our tenders. Does the Minister agree that our relations with Dubai stand to be damaged by the continued detention of George Atkinson? What representations will the Minister make to the Government of Dubai consequent on the decision by the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention to describe Mr. Atkinson's detention as "arbitrary"?
    Mr. Fatchett: I welcome the first part of the hon. Gentleman's comments, particularly his reference to the competitiveness of British exports in the middle east. It is good to hear him talking in those terms, unlike many of his colleagues, and I welcome his comments.
    We continue to make representations on Mr. Atkinson's behalf. The hon. Gentleman has been vigilant in his support for his constituent. We shall continue to liaise with him, with Mr. Atkinson's family and with the authorities in Dubai, and we shall take up the points that have been made about Mr. Atkinson's detention.

    Biological and Chemical Weapons
    Mr. Harry Cohen: What representations he has made to his United States counterpart to try to achieve that country's agreement to ensure compliance with biological and chemical weapons treaties. [54296]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We are in regular dialogue with the United States on all aspects of the implementation of the biological and chemical weapons conventions. I am pleased to report that the United States has passed legislation to implement the chemical weapons convention.
    Mr. Cohen: That is news to me.
    148
    Is the Minister aware of the danger that will be posed to the international regime against chemical weapons if the United States drags its feet in implementing legislation? Is he saying that call inspections will now be possible in factories where chemicals are handled? I understand that the lack of such inspections is blocking call inspections in other countries.
    Can the Minister tell us something about the biological treaty negotiations in Geneva? Hopefully, the United States will not drag its feet in that regard.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am pleased to say that the United States Congress recently ratified legislation allowing precisely the type of challenge inspection that my hon. Friend has described. There is now no possibility that other countries can hide behind the supposed reluctance of the United States, which is now complying with the chemical weapons convention. We welcome that, having played our part by making our views known to the United States Government and Congress.
    I remind the House that, in his new year message and more recently at the United Nations, President Clinton spoke in favour of the biological weapons convention. That is a positive sign. The United States is already a signatory. What we are all working towards now—at least, those of us who are working with good will—is the certainty that the same challenge regime exists for biological as for chemical weapons. That would be a signal achievement for the world. We have already banned a whole class of chemical weapons of mass destruction, legally at least. If we can do the same in regard to biological weapons, and implement the ban, we shall have taken a significant step for all mankind.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Was it not a piece of barefaced cheek for the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) to point the finger of accusation at the United States in relation to treaties banning biological weapons? The United States, like this country, signed the treaty to ban biological weapons in 1972, and President Yeltsin admitted in 1992 that for 20 years—as we in the west had suspected—the Soviet Union had been flagrantly breaching the treaty. If accusations of that kind are to be made, should not the hon. Gentleman direct them at the Russians, who, even now, have not cleaned up their act in this respect?
    Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like me to go a little beyond party political rhetoric, and stick to the substance of his question. He is right: the United States was one of the signatories of the 1972 treaty, which was an important step forward. Britain's record is good in this regard, and I must pay tribute to what the previous Government did in respect of chemical weapons, although perhaps they did less in respect of biological weapons. As a House and as a country, we should hold firmly to the view that all nations should sign and ratify both treaties.

    Kashmir
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What recent discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with representatives of the Indian and Pakistani Governments, regarding Kashmir. [54297]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We have had a number of discussions with representatives of India and Pakistan on regional security issues, including the question of Kashmir.
    Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is understandable that there is worldwide concern about the increasing tension between Pakistan and India over the Kashmir problem, especially following the nuclear tests carried out by both countries earlier this year? Does he hope that the talks that started last week, which will be resumed in the new year, will lead to an end to the problem? That is in the interests of people on both sides in Kashmir, and in the interests of India and Pakistan. Will my hon. Friend make it clear to both sides that, while there is a problem for those countries to solve, we will do all that we can to assist the achieving of that objective?
    Mr. Fatchett: I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said. It is crucial that India and Pakistan are able to establish a sensible, constructive and peaceful bilateral relationship. We wish the talks well that started last week and had been preceded by discussions between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan in New York. We hope that those discussions lead to measures that relate not just to Kashmir, but to other confidence-building issues and broader economic and security issues—but my hon. Friend is right. The south Asian sub-continent is a volatile area, and the question of Kashmir makes it that much more volatile. Hence the need for the discussions to be successful.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: Does the Minister of State recall that today is the 51st anniversary of the occupation of large parts of Kashmir by Indian forces? Therefore, does he not think that it would be a good day to confirm the United Kingdom's determination to bring Kashmir back on to the agenda of the United Nations Security Council, bearing in mind that there were resolutions from the Security Council in 1948, 1949 and 1957 calling for a plebiscite of the Kashmiri people on their future? Does he not think that that should be pressed for by Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Fatchett: The international community is naturally concerned about the developments in relation to Kashmir and the threats that those pose for regional stability and security. The best current approach is through the bilateral talks between India and Pakistan. We wish those well. The obvious parties to resolve these difficulties are the two Governments. If they can come to an understanding, that is the best way for the peace of the area and for the people of Kashmir.

    Argentina
    Mr. Michael J. Foster: What plans he has to meet the President of Argentina to discuss UK-Argentine relations. [54298]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The President of Argentina arrives on an official visit today. He will hold talks with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and me. He will address the City of London and the Confederation of British Industry, and lay a wreath in commemoration of those who fell in the Falklands war. This is the first visit to Britain by the President of Argentina since it became a modern democracy, and a welcome demonstration of the growing strength of relations between our two countries.
    Mr. Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to rebuild Britain's relationship with the new Government of Argentina? Will the Government use President Menem's visit to take forward our growing ties in trade and industry for the benefit of both our nations?
    Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that we expect this visit to provide a further boost to the excellent commercial relationships that Britain and Argentina enjoy. President Menem will bring with him 100 leading Argentine business men and the contact with the CBI and the City will, I am sure, deepen those commercial ties.
    It is also appropriate that we should recall that President Menem played no part in the Government of Argentina with whom we were at war two decades ago. At the time, he was in prison, where he was held for five years and tortured under that same regime. The fact that he is the President of Argentina shows how far it has come.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: In welcoming President Menem, personifying as he does the process of reconciliation and compassion in his country, will the right hon. Gentleman take heed of President Menem's wise counsel with regard to relations between both Argentina and the United Kingdom and Argentina and its neighbouring states? Therefore, could the right hon. Gentleman do nothing that will prejudice democracy within a state neighbouring Argentina, which had a very tense relationship with that country?
    Mr. Cook: If I were to pursue the line of thinking in the hon. Gentleman's question, President Menem might justifiably be rather confused as to which country I thought he came from. First, however, I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the reconciliation, which has been welcomed by most of the veterans of the Falklands war; secondly, of course, we will do nothing to undermine democracy in either Argentina or Chile; nor will we do anything to undermine the rule of law in Britain.
    Mr. David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend tell President Menem of this country's undoubted good will towards Argentina now that it is a democracy, but make it clear that he should understand that it is important to allow the due process of law to take place regarding General Pinochet? That very process of law, I am glad to say, is being carried out in Argentina.

    151
    There should be an understanding that there can be no amnesty and no safe haven for mass murderers such as Pinochet.
    Hon. Members: What about China?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question is about Argentina. I shall have something to say on these matters a little later. Does the Foreign Secretary want to make any response?
    Mr. Cook indicated dissent.
    Madam Speaker: I thought not.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the close links between Wales and Patagonia—links that came under considerable strain during the Falklands war—and that there is a well of good will in Argentina towards the United Kingdom and a desire to forge much closer relationships. Does he agree that the best safeguard for the Falklands is for such links to blossom and grow constructively?
    Mr. Cook: I am well aware of those links. It is worth recalling that we have a deep and wide relationship with Argentina. For instance, British service men are currently working alongside Argentine service men to maintain the peace on the green line in Cyprus. If our service men can achieve that partnership, our politicians should seek to do so too. I fully agree that a healthy understanding between our two countries must be good for the Falkland Islanders in the long run.

    Germany
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: If he will make a statement on the impact of the German general election result on British-German relations. [54300]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The United Kingdom has excellent relations with Germany and we look forward to developing them further with the new German Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I will meet the new German Minister for Foreign Affairs, Joschka Fischer, for discussions both tomorrow and on Thursday.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend believe that the election of a fellow centre left Government in Bonn will help in our Government's task of repairing our damaged relations with Germany—relations that suffered so badly under the previous Government—and that the election result shows that it is entirely possible to have decisive political change under a system of proportional representation?
    Ms Quin: As the German SPD belongs to our political family, we are, of course, pleased that it has won such support from the German electorate. We look forward to working closely with the new Government, and it is satisfying to note that the centre left seems to be so popular with European electorates. Perhaps Conservative Members would like to reflect on that trend.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Minister will be aware that the new German Government have already
    152
    imposed a moratorium on an important joint arms programme, for the multi-role armoured vehicle. Defence relations are obviously an essential part of our relations. What is the new German Government's response to the Prime Minister's proposals for a change of policy on defence in Europe, which the House has not had the opportunity to hear?
    Ms Quin: Chancellor Schröder complimented the Prime Minister on his contribution at Pörtschach, and felt that his proposals were a good basis for future discussions on that part of European policy. The Prime Minister's statement was welcomed generally as an important contribution to the debate of the heads of state.

    Lockerbie
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations to resolve Lockerbie-related problems. [54301]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Last August, I announced agreements with the Governments of the Netherlands and of the United States on the conditions under which we could hold a trial of the two accused in a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. The agreement has been endorsed in a unanimous resolution of the Security Council, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations is in discussion with Libya on the arrangements for the handover of the two accused.
    We have been able since to respond positively to all the concerns raised by the Libyan legal team, with the exception of the demand that, if convicted, the two accused should not serve their sentence in a Scottish prison. If they are found guilty, we can see no valid reason why they should not serve sentence in the jurisdiction of Scotland, where the mass murder took place.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a matter of record that the Libyan Government have constantly said that it is up to the defence team to decide, from its point of view, the locus of serving a sentence, if there is one? Does he not therefore take encouragement from the fact that, as far as most of us know, the defence lawyers have not objected to the locus of Scotland in terms of a sentence, if any sentence is passed?
    Mr. Cook: It is, indeed, the case that the defence lawyers have not expressed any view on where the accused should be held in prison. However, I should tell my hon. Friend that, before we made our offer last August, there was no statement from the Government of Libya expressing any concern about imprisonment in Scotland. That concern surfaced only after we had met their demand for a trial under Scottish law in a third country. We now expect Libya to oblige the Security Council resolution by surrendering the two accused for trial on exactly the same basis as that for which Libya itself has lobbied for a long time.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Government of Libya have indicated in writing that they agree to the proposals, subject to some amendments, and as the British Government have said that there will be no amendments, is it not rather insulting to the House

    153
    that the draft order setting out the proposals for the trial and the expenditure has been dealt with under a procedure entailing that the order cannot be discussed in the House? Does not the Foreign Secretary think that it would be appropriate for the House to debate the order and to be able to express a view on it? Does he not also agree that there is a case for quiet private discussions and flexibility, and that the issue could well be resolved very speedily?
    Mr. Cook: The draft was passed by an Order in Council under the standard procedures for Orders
    154
    in Council, and gives effect to a Security Council resolution, which has standing in international law. As for flexibility, the Libyan defence team has come up with no concern on which we have not been able to reassure it, except for the one matter of it wishing to dictate where the two accused might serve their sentence if convicted.
    There is nothing to stop any hon. Member debating the issue. I rather wish that we were dealing with a regime that would allow the Libyan people to discuss it in the same open way.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Sir Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a point of order of which I have given you notice? As you know, we have asked the Home Secretary to come to the House to make a statement on the position of General Pinochet. There are important questions to be asked, ranging from the handling of the case to the condition of General Pinochet himself.
The Home Secretary may feel himself inhibited in making such a statement by the proceedings currently taking place in the divisional court, which I understand will soon be completed. I think that it is important that the House should be able to hear a full statement on the case, given that it is being extensively reported in the media, not only in the United Kingdom but around the world. Could you confirm that, once the proceedings in the divisional court are concluded, there will be nothing to prevent the Home Secretary from coming to the House to make a statement?
Madam Speaker: Thank you, Sir Norman. I know that Mrs. Clwyd has a similar point of order, which I shall take now.
Ann Clwyd: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Further to that point of order, although I know that we have had a few little differences in the past, I was very surprised last night to receive from the Table Office a letter informing me that my early-day motion—which was signed by 75 of my colleagues, and expressed the opinion that we were pleased at Senator Pinochet's detention in Britain—had been suspended from the Order Paper. I am a little confused because, during Foreign Office Question Time, we have had quite an open discussion of the matter.
Why is it possible to express an opinion on the matter, one way or the other, during Question Time, whereas it is not possible to express an opinion on the Order Paper? I know that many more of my colleagues wanted to sign that particular early-day motion. I should therefore be glad if you could throw some light on the matter.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to add to the observations expressed by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), in as much as I tabled an amendment to her early-day motion, to express the view that the Senator should be allowed to return to Chile to recuperate, and perhaps to receive there the extradition request from the Spanish authorities. I too received notice from the Table Office that my amendment had to be withdrawn.
You will recall that I sought to raise private notice questions on Monday and Thursday of last week on the Senator Pinochet affair. When the divisional court proceedings are over, will it be possible for hon. Members
156
to table private notice questions on matters relating to the senator if there are important developments that require the House's urgent attention?
Several hon. Members rose
Madam Speaker: How many more points of order before I can respond?
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It should not be thought that it is only Opposition Members who would like the opportunity, if the rules permitted it, to discuss the Pinochet affair. As you may or may not know, I have been keen for such a debate to be held on the Floor of the House. The reason that I want it debated at the earliest opportunity, although I recognise the limitations set by our rules, is that many of us want to explain that Pinochet is a murderer and should be—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am dealing with a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman is expressing an opinion, I have no time for that at this moment. This is a serious matter.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose
Mr. Gerald Bermingham rose
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I have the feeling of the House about this matter. I have been in the House for some 25 years; I am very sensitive to its needs, and I try to respond.
I know that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) is concerned that he is inhibited from commenting in the House on matters that he has been widely asked to comment on outside. I know too that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) is frustrated, as other hon. Members no doubt are, that her early-day motion and those of others, along with amendments to them, relating to Senator Pinochet have been withdrawn from the Order Paper because the matter is now sub judice. I fully understand Members' concerns, but I must have regard to the rules of the House. I do not make the rules of the House; I simply carry them out until they are changed.
Our sub judice resolutions, which can be found in the Standing Orders of the House, require that there should be no comment on matters awaiting jurisdiction in the courts. A hearing is currently being held relating to the legality of the senator's arrest and, in due course, a court may have to decide whether the evidence against the senator is sufficient to warrant his trial in Spain. Hon. Members must therefore take care not to offend against the rule, which exists to avoid conflict between Parliament and the courts and to ensure that the judiciary and the courts remain, and are seen to be, free from political pressure.
I shall of course ensure that hon. Members are able to raise with Ministers in the House any matters relating to this issue as soon as it is in order to do so. I shall watch proceedings carefully and ensure that, when the

157
proceedings in relation to the arrest and the extradition request are completed, the early-day motions are restored to the Order Paper. I can say no more at this stage.
Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: No. There are no further points of order on this. That is a very clear ruling. I shall take no further points of order on the matter.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We were just told During Foreign Office questions by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), the reaction of Chancellor Schroder to the Prime Minister's proposals on European defence, proposals that Philip Webster of The Times has heard but which the House has not. Have you had any notice of a statement by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Office or, indeed, the Ministry of Defence on this matter?
Madam Speaker: No, I have had no indication that any statement is going to be made by any Minister on that matter today.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Of course, if it is on a different matter.
Mr. Howarth: May I just ask you—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have given a very clear ruling. I shall take no further points of order on this matter.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a fresh point of order, Madam Speaker. The weekend summit in Austria was described as informal, but it is nevertheless of considerable interest to the House. As it is a House of Commons matter, has there been any approach to you to suggest that there will be a statement by the Prime Minister on what took place? It has already been mentioned in a partisan manner by the shadow Foreign Secretary, who linked it with Chile. However, will the matter be separately debated by the House?
Madam Speaker: It is not a matter for me whether time is available for such a statement. If the Prime Minister or any Minister wishes to make a statement, I shall ensure that he or she can do so. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, I have had requests from other hon. Members for such a statement, but none has been forthcoming.

Adoption (League Tables)
3.39 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to publish annual totals of numbers of children in care, numbers of children adopted and numbers of parents available to undertake adoptions; to require local authorities to provide the Secretary of State annually with a list of children in care, together with the length of time each child has been in care; and to require the Secretary of State to publish league tables of local authorities based on that information.
I am privileged to have support for the Bill from hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the members of the all-party children group; the chairman of the child abduction group; the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who generously gave up his slot for this Bill, and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
As we read today of young lives ruined by physical and sexual abuse, drug-taking and prostitution, many of us think, "Thank God that our children are not involved"; but surely all children matter. Perhaps the worst feature are the horrific statistics relating to children taken into care—those for whom the state has taken responsibility. We owe a special responsibility to them because they have no voice of their own.
Since my earlier ten-minute Bill on adoption, there has been another horrifying report to the House on the vicious abuse of children in another state-run children's home. Many workers in children's homes work intensely hard to do their best for very damaged children, but the overall statistics are extremely bleak. Children leaving care are 50 times as likely as other children to end up in adult prison. They are far more likely to be drug abusers. Perhaps most horrifyingly, girls in care have a one in four chance of being pregnant at some point during their time in so-called care. The evidence is that the rate of abuse of boys is almost the same.
We are failing the most vulnerable and defenceless members of our community, but there is one underrated institution that has a remarkable success rate—adoption. Studies from all over the world show how successful adoption is. Children from care who are adopted do much better not only than those who remain in care but than those returned from care to their natural parents. Incredibly, children adopted from care, including badly damaged children, out-perform even those who remain with certain categories of natural family.
Numerically speaking, however, adoption has collapsed. Only 6,000 children were adopted in 1995, compared with 22,000 a generation ago. The most scandalous figure is that, last year, fewer than 2,000 children were adopted from care, out of more than 50,000 currently in care. The number of children in care has started to rise again, while the number of those adopted from care continues to fall year after year. There are many families who would love to give those children a loving home.
In an earlier ten-minute Bill, I proposed legally forcing local authorities to give priority to adoption in certain circumstances, and to give assistance to couples adopting. I greatly regret that there is not to be an adoption Bill, although I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Health has taken the trouble to come and listen to my speech.

159
In August, a circular from the Department of Health called on local authorities to be more open to adoption. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides would endorse the circular, but it is no substitute for legislation. I fear that many local authorities will ignore it, as they did a similar circular from the Minister's predecessor, John Bowis, who was then the hon. Member for Battersea, leaving the most vulnerable children in our society as the losers.
My previous Bill was given a First Reading without a vote. I am grateful for the all-party support for this more modest measure. The aim of the Bill is to turn the aspirations of successive Ministers and of hon. Members on both sides into clear reality. By ensuring the compilation of more statistics, the Bill would expose those local authorities that are holding children back from adoption for ideological reasons. It would require local authorities to furnish the Secretary of State with a list of every child in care, saying how long it has been in care. Incredibly, despite the clear legal requirement, many such children have not even been furnished with proper care plans.
The Bill would further require the Department to publish, by local authority, not just the total number of children in care, but how long they have been in care, the total number deemed suitable for adoption, the number who have been adopted and the number of parents cleared by the local authority as suitable for adoption. According to the Government's recent circular, all that information should be provided to elected councillors. By forcing local authorities to provide it in a standard format to the Government—and hence to Parliament—the Government, Parliament and the public will be able to see which local authorities are dragging their feet. Lest there be any doubt that some local authorities are dragging their feet, I remind hon. Members that last year 50 local authorities had 10 or fewer children adopted from care. Indeed, a few did not have any children adopted from care in the most recent accounting period.
The Bill would help to expose the unnecessary suffering of children trapped in the care system when there are loving families who would love to give them a home. In my earlier measure, I sought to give the Secretary of State the power to intervene with local authorities that did not appear to be acting in the best interests of the children concerned and to hand over their adoption responsibilities to voluntary organisations. This Bill would at least make the information public, showing which were the local authorities concerned.
We have a large and growing number of children slipping through the cracks from care into crime, drug taking and child prostitution. We must move the emphasis from long periods in children's homes—and in the case of some local authorities, politically correct experiments in placements, some of which are transitory—to a higher proportion of adoption, which should be effected by married couples, in my opinion. That would offer thousands of children who are lost in and by the care system the prospect of a decent home and a better life.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has courteously written to tell me that he intends to oppose the Bill, but does not intend to put the matter to a vote. I should like him to answer two questions. First, does he accept that some local authorities are actively opposing adoption? Secondly, if he does not accept that, how does he explain why some had no
160
children adopted out of care last year and many others had so few—and how does he explain the continuing fall in the national total? The system is unsatisfactory. We all want a Bill to facilitate adoption, but in the meantime, does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is all the system's fault? If he wants to oppose the Bill, I ask him to give the House the opportunity to vote on it.
3.49 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I should like to oppose the Bill. In doing so, I commend the commitment of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and applaud him for bringing the important subject of adoption to the House. He asked me two direct questions, which I shall try to answer. I would be surprised if any local authority were actively opposing adoption. Some individuals—perhaps influential individuals—may have got themselves into a position where such events have resulted.
Sometimes, as I want to explain, adoption has fallen by default. The situation in adoption services is very serious. Like the hon. Gentleman, I want them to improve and develop; I just do not think that this Bill is the proper way to achieve that. I do not want to press the matter to a vote at this stage, because the subject is very important and it is vital instead that we have a proper debate.
One of my worries about the Bill arises from the fact that adoption is not the only proper way of looking after children in care—or necessarily the best way. The majority of children who are looked after in care are returned home—many very successfully. Some children remain quite appropriately in long-term foster care, and some remain quite appropriately in long-term residential care. As has been said, it seems that, under the Bill, local authorities could be criticised for not having children adopted, even when a good assessment, a well worked care plan and the wishes and feelings of the children indicate some other solution.
I commend the desire for information, which we of course need. As has been acknowledged, much of the information that would be required under the Bill is routinely collected or is on its way to being collected. If we want to improve and develop adoption as a profoundly important way in which to help children in care—I think that both the hon. Member for Canterbury and I do—we need to collect more sophisticated information about needs and resources throughout the care system and evaluate outcomes for care-leavers, including those who were adopted, rather than take up the ideological position of thinking that it is always or invariably best to adopt. We need to empower young people to tell us what it is really like for them in care.
We need fundamental reform of the care system. I am so pleased that the Government have introduced the "quality protects" initiative. I also look forward to the response to the Utting report. The importance of this debate is that it helps to draw attention to the problems in adoption. I agree with the figures that have been quoted. Recent research by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering shows that the use of adoption has fallen from 2,800 instances in 1992 to 2,300 in 1996, and that adoption is primarily an outcome for very young children. Indeed, 90 per cent. of those adopted in 1996 were aged five or under. The research reports terrible delays in finding placements and between making those placements and achieving the adoption.

161
The Government are addressing those is sues. They have taken sensible steps in "Adoption: achieving the right balance" to reinforce what I, as a former practitioner, would regard as good practice: recognising the benefits of adoption while taking account of the significance of race, culture, religion and language, so as to ensure that children are not denied adoptive placements on such grounds; accounting sensitively for age, health and smoking factors; and giving priority to long-term planning and a regular review of services.
I was worried by the fact that the hon. Member for Canterbury allowed comments about ideology and about political correctness to creep into his speech. Such thinking is not prevalent in social services departments.
Although local authorities should be accountable, league tables are wholly inappropriate for a complex, subtle, highly professional process, carefully assessing the individual child, balancing the needs of siblings, trying to keep families together, weighing the importance of contact with birth families, matching needs with the perceived qualities, abilities and experience of prospective adoptive families and, above all, trying to look into the future and work out how things will develop, perhaps a decade ahead. It may be a controversial view in the House, but I believe that there are a great many excellent social workers; they need to be encouraged and supported in good practice in complex and difficult human situations instead of being hit over the head with crude and misleading league tables.
The hon. Member for Canterbury referred to the lack of an adoption Bill; I entirely agree that one is needed. I am sorry that other aspects of his proposal today missed their opportunities. I should like to push the Government a little more. On Tuesday 20 October, in the House, the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering launched their adoption action plan. It is very good stuff. Some of it has been around for a very long time. We need a new Adoption Act. In 1996, a draft Bill on adoption received support from both sides of the House. A new Act could clarify the status of adoption in line with the Children Act 1989, in England and Wales. Other parts of Great Britain have already done so.
162
We need national standards for adoption services, to help improve practice across the board. We need performance indicators. We need ethnic monitoring of children in care and the adoption opportunities available to them. We need a national register of prospective adopters, so that people in one part of the country need not wait ages when children from another part might easily and properly be placed with them.
We need paid adoption leave for adoptive parents. That is so important in forming that vital bond early. We need adoption allowances, so that couples who are fostering children successfully are not financially penalised if they make the greater commitment to adopt them. Crucially, support services need to be provided for adoptive families after adoption.
Although the Bill is well meaning, it misses fundamental points. In the past 12 months, there have been signs that the Government have the potential to be a great reforming Government for children in care. Some good steps were taken in the recent Adoption Agencies and Children (Arrangements for Placement and Reviews)(Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997, but the Government can do more. We could all do more, so let us do it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Julian Brazier, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. David Davis, Mr. Bill Olner, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Malcolm Wicks, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. John Burnett and Mr. Christopher Fraser.

ADOPTION (LEAGUE TABLES)
Mr. Julian Brazier accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities to publish annual totals of numbers of children in care, numbers of children adopted and numbers of parents available to undertake adoptions; to require local authorities to provide the Secretary of State annually with a list of children in care, together with the length of time each child has been in care; and to require the Secretary of State to publish league tables of local authorities based on that information: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 249].
Orders of the Day
  European Parliamentary Elections Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  European Parliamentary Elections Bill
    Clause 1

      NUMBER OF MEPs, ELECTORAL REGIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 1, leave out ("a registered party, or").
      3.59 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That this House does disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4.
      Mr. Straw: As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) and I have said many times, it is the Government's fundamental belief that an electoral system should be appropriate to the nature and function of the body that it is electing. In the case of the European Parliament, the Government believe that the simple regional list system—some people call it the closed list system—is the most appropriate way for the voters of Great Britain to elect their Members of the European Parliament.
      I shall not, unless tempted—this is a serious warning to my hon. Friends—go over much old ground on the pros and cons of proportional representation, multi-Member regions, or the size and composition of those regions. [Interruption.] I believe in regions. I am strongly committed to regions.
      I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) in his place. Since he debated the issue with me—there is no linkage here—the scope of the debate has narrowed. Over the course of almost a year, this House and the other place have agreed that the next elections to the European Parliament should take place under a regional list system. What we are now considering is the fascinating and important question of what kind of regional system should be used.
      You, Madam Speaker, are one of the experts on electoral systems. You will know, as others may not, that there are basically three types of list system—closed, semi-open and open. As originally drafted, the Bill provided for the first of these—a closed list system.
      Sir Norman Fowler: Semi-open.
      Mr. Straw: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) mutters from the Front Bench, but I have a feeling that he did not want to hand over the baton as shadow Home Secretary until after we had debated the merits of the semi-open list—namely, the Belgian list.
      Sir Norman Fowler: We have got that.
      Mr. Straw: Very good. I shall deal with the Belgian list in a moment, even if not tempted.
      164
      When I first presented the Bill to the House, it contained the proposal for a closed list system. The amendments that have been made in the other place provide for the last of those three systems—a fully open system. I shall explain, especially to hon. Members who support the open system, how it would work. Sometimes, as is said in the Guinness advertisements, things are not always as they appear.
      For a party which, I am told, is united on first past the post, if it is united on nothing else, I must explain that the result of its proposal will be eccentric in the extreme, and will not lead to the horses that get first past the post actually winning the seats. Indeed, some of the old nags who saw the vet the previous day and who are way behind the first in the field will win the seats in the European Parliament. I wonder whether that was the intended result. I shall explain how that will arise, then I shall be happy to take questions.
      Under the open list system, an elector casts his vote for a particular candidate on a party's list, or for an independent candidate. What the voter cannot do is cast his or her vote for the party's list as a whole.
      With the regional list system, we are not dealing with a standard first-past-the-post multiple vacancy system of the kind that Labour Members knew and loved during the 18 years of opposition, which was called the shadow Cabinet electoral system. That also produced some eccentric results, of which I suppose I am an example, but the one thing that it did not produce, except in respect of those four women's places, was an outcome where someone who received more votes did not get elected and someone who received fewer votes did get elected. That will be the result of the proposed system.
      The voter will have one vote and may cast it for an independent candidate or for one of, say, the 10 or 11 Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat candidates on the list. What the voter cannot do is to cast his vote for the party as a whole. The hybrid semi-open system is the Belgian system, which we debated at some length and which is not before the House today. However, I shall elaborate on that system if I am asked to do so.
      The votes received by each candidate on a party list are first added together to give the party's total number of votes. That figure is used to determine how many seats a party has won. I do not need to remind the House that the method used to determine how many seats a party has won by was devised by our old friend, that famous Belgian Victor d'Hondt.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: Whatever happened to him?
      Mr. Straw: I think that he died—he went the way of all flesh. By the way, I have a feeling that "d'hondt" means "dog" in Flemish. Some might say that we have been dogged by the d'Hondt divisors.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: It is obvious that Mr. d'Hondt's name drove him to an untimely demise—and it will no doubt do the same to us. According to the Home Secretary's comments, under the open list system, a person votes for only one candidate, and that gives rise to all sorts of peculiarities. Would it not be possible to arrange that, if a person votes for a particular candidate, that is also his or her preference

      165
      within the party? That would give the candidate an added vote in the final count, and would allow a person to vote for the list. That is surely not beyond the wit of man.
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely correct in saying that that is not beyond the wit of man or woman. In fact, it is, roughly speaking, the Belgian system. The only problem is that that is not the system before the House for which the other place voted. The other place voted for a wholly open system—
      Mr. Richard Allan: The Finnish system.
      Mr. Straw: I rest my case. Finland is a wonderful place, but a third of Finns do not understand the Finnish language.
      The other place voted for the open list system, which produces slightly odd results. Under that system, one aggregates all the votes cast for candidates of a particular party. Therefore, one adds up all the votes cast for Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates and so on. That produces the total number of votes cast for the parties and one then uses a d'Hondt divisor to calculate how many of the 10 or 11 vacancies in the region will go to each party.
      The seats are allocated in the order of the votes received. That means that, if a party wins three seats in a region, those seats will be allocated to the three candidates who won the most votes among candidates of their party. However, this is where the system becomes slightly eccentric. For example, there may be one very strong candidate on a party list—I shall pick at random the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. There may also be several unknown candidates on the party list. I choose, by way of further example—there will be complete approbation on this point—the Whips, who are faceless, who never speak and whose constituencies I have forgotten. That applies on both sides of the House.
      So there is one strong, very well-known party candidate on the list and several other candidates who are not known at all—as they say, they are not even household names in their own households. Let us suppose that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield receives 100,000 votes in that region.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: He would get more than that.
      Mr. Straw: His hon. Friend, the speechless Whip, says that the right hon. Gentleman would get more votes than that. For the sake of argument, we shall say that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield receives 1 million votes—I think that that is reasonable in the circumstances. Let us assume—I do not want my example to get too complicated, Madam Speaker—that there are just five vacancies in that region, and the other four candidates each receive 200,000 votes. It will be quickly realised that the Conservative party has received 2 million votes, and, in this region in my entirely hypothetical example, has done better than the other parties. Therefore, it wins three out of the five vacancies, because the other parties received fewer than 2 million votes.
      166
      Then we allocate the three seats to the three Conservatives. It has happened that, as well as one Conservative getting 1 million votes and the others getting 200,000 each—my arithmetic was wrong, because there would have to be six candidates if there were to be 2 million votes altogether. By the way, this is a simple system. It is the simple closed system. It happens that there are some medium-strong candidates on our side, the Labour side. The obvious such candidate is my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who I suggest gets 800,000 votes. The process would go on, with another of my hon. Friends getting 500,000 votes and the rest getting fewer than 200,000.
      Under this system, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield fairly gets elected and gets one of the seats. However, the next two seats are not awarded to the candidates who in the round have more votes than the faceless Whips. The seats go to a couple of candidates who each secured 200,000 votes. There are others who have 400,000 or 500,000 votes who do not get elected. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow is elected, and someone else who gets 600,000 votes is elected. There are the other three who get fewer votes—say, 300,000 each. The aggregate of those comes to fewer than 2 million votes.
      Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. John Marek: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Straw: Of course I will. I will give way shortly.
      The electors will say, "This is rather odd." By the way, I agree that it is rather odd. I modestly suggest that the electors will say—I understand that the Conservative party is backing this arrangement—"This is particularly odd for a party which otherwise has been consistently in favour of first past the post."
      I have excited a little interest, and at this stage I will give way to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).
      Miss McIntosh: I hope that on this occasion I can assist the Home Secretary and avoid the scenario of dog eating dog that is pervading the Chamber. Missing from the right hon. Gentleman's scenario—he has spoken eloquently, and we have all enjoyed hearing it—is the electors' choice. Does the right hon. Gentleman not share my concern that the greatest handicap of changing the system on 10 June next year is that, for the first time ever, the elector will be prevented from voting for a mainstream candidate from one of the major parties in the election system as we know it? This will lead to massive confusion, and possibly a record number of spoilt ballot papers.
      Mr. Straw: I shall answer that point seriously, because I think that it deserves a serious answer. My judgment is that we end up with less voter choice, paradoxically, under the open system than under the closed system.
      Mr. Eric Forth: What?
      Mr. Straw: If what the Conservative party were putting forward—[Interruption.] I shall give way, but I should like to develop this point.

      167
      If it were being proposed that there were as many votes as there were vacancies, the hon. Member for Vale of York would be right, and the open system would be the appropriate one. We can argue then about the problem of proportionality if we have the first-past-the-post system in a multi-Member constituency. We can argue whether there should be ranking in order or in some other way, but the hon. Lady would be right. If each voter was allowed to vote for every person on the list, there would for sure be greater voter choice. We would also end up with the situation in which the candidates getting the most votes would win. I happen to think that that is rather an important principle, which we have to stick by.
      Under the closed list system, I think that there will be a good degree of choice. It is the choice of a party. When I stand in Blackburn, I stand as the Labour candidate. If people want to vote Labour, they must vote for me. Let none of us believe that, if we stood simply as the J. Straw party, we would get the same number of votes. That has been tried once or twice. I remember S. O. Davis, who was a legend in his lifetime—[Interruption] I shall give way in a moment. S. O. Davies tried it, as have many others. The truth is that we get to this place because of our party backing. If that were taken away, most of us would not be here. That would almost certainly include me. The closed list system gives clarity and a degree of fairness.
      We are debating not the merits of various systems but the proposition that came to the House from the other place, which I am trying to point out has serious defects from the point of view of the principles which the Conservative party holds dear.
      4.15 pm
      With one vote, voters must plump for one of, say, in larger regions, 10 candidates. Either they will go for the person who is top of the list alphabetically—that discriminates heavily against those of us who are at the bottom of the list, which is always my explanation of how I came near the bottom in the shadow Cabinet elections; another explanation was the well-informed electorate, and a third was the fact that I could not properly explain the regional list system—or, and this is much more important and a good deal of research evidence shows it in multi-member wards in local elections, they vote for the white male, and they certainly do not vote for anyone whose name sounds foreign and may be Asian.
      The truth is that most of the candidates in most of these regions—it was also true for the European elections under the single-Member constituencies—are known to only a small minority of their electorate. We know that to be the case, and there will be no change between the new and the old systems, because the number of MEPs, however good they are, who could conceivably develop a connection with their electorate so that they could have a personal vote, is tiny.
      It is not true that voters will be informed about the relative merits of the candidates. What they are informed about is the relative merits of the parties.
      Dr. Marek: My right hon. Friend got to the truth of the problem when he said that it was a choice for the party. In the case of Labour, it has been a choice for the Labour party centrally. Does he know that in Wales a candidate was put on the list who ordinary Labour party
      168
      members did not know was in contention and who was not being considered, and it was a complete surprise to all of us in north Wales when the list was produced? It is difficult to find any Labour party member in north Wales who will help in the European Parliament election next June. That is the problem with the closed list.
      Mr. Straw: I am aware of the case. I have just been briefed. I have refreshed my memory. Actually, I do now remember the case. We are debating a system which should apply by law for voters. We are not debating, although I am happy to do so if you, Madam Speaker allow me, the merits or otherwise of the Labour party's internal system.
      I simply say that, because of our unrivalled act of generosity in putting forward this system of proportional representation, which will be put into effect next June—never before in Britain's history has a party voluntarily given up quite a large number of seats to its erstwhile opponents, but we are doing so—we have more MEPs than, even with the kind of result that we had at the last election, could be elected under the new system. That has meant some personnel management as we downsized the cadre. That, in turn, has created difficulties.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: The principal factor in the scenario that the Home Secretary has painted is not the openness of the list but the operation of the d'Hondt formula. That formula is coincidental to the amendment, but is at the heart of the system that he proposes. To take the right hon. Gentleman back to his opening remarks that the electoral system must be appropriate to the body that is being elected, is he suggesting that, because the European Parliament is not really a Parliament, we can afford a barking electoral system to elect it? If so, those on this Bench might find it attractive.
      Mr. Straw: If we are to have multi-Member constituencies, we must work out a way of dividing the vacancies among the parties. One way of proceeding is to give electors as many votes as there are vacancies. Electors vote either by marking a cross or by choosing a number between one and, say, five, and the computer does the rest. However, that is not what we are discussing here today. I doubt whether that kind of proportional representation would be acceptable to the Conservative party.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Straw: I shall in a second.
      If there are fewer votes than vacancies, one must use some form of mathematical divisor, whether it is an open list, a semi-closed or an entirely closed system. That is not directly relevant to the merits of the case that we are discussing today. My comradely advice to the Conservative party about its future self-interest is that it is well served by the d'Hondt system. Indeed, that is the only reason that I proposed it.
      Mr. Llew Smith: Would the Home Secretary be kind enough to remind the House of the content of the excellent document that he once wrote for

      169
      the national executive of the Labour party, in which he criticised not only the closed system of PR but every other system?
      Will the Home Secretary now respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek)? There seem to be two problems. Under the closed system, those who decide who the Members of the European Parliament will be are not the electorate but a small panel within each individual party. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said, that problem is made even worse within the Labour party, because those who decide on the candidates are not the members, through one person, one vote, but a panel of about a dozen people. My predecessors, Aneurin Bevan and Michael Foot, would not have been acceptable, because their views would have been too radical and too socialist, and because they were too dissenting.
      Mr. Straw: As far as I recall, the excellent tract that I wrote applied to the Westminster Parliament. We are dealing with horses for courses.
      Mr. Llew Smith rose—
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend has asked a series of questions, and I wish to deal with them. He asked how each party decides on the make-up of its list. That is not this House's responsibility.
      Mr. Smith: The Home Secretary raised the issue.
      Mr. Straw: As I said, it is not a matter for the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) asked what had happened in the Labour party system, and I have sought to respond.
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham asked about internal party democracy only in response to the point which the Home Secretary raised on that very matter.
      Mr. Straw: I think that the record will show otherwise.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice rose—
      Mr. Straw: I shall allow my hon. Friend to intervene, and then I shall get on with my speech.
      Mr. Prentice: I do not want to labour the point, but, as the Home Secretary acknowledges, under the closed list system, real power transfers to the party. If we are to have a closed list system, we need a completely transparent system of inner-party democracy so that Labour party members realise why a candidate has been selected to represent the party at the European elections.
      It is invidious to name names, but I shall do so. My Member of the European Parliament, Mark Hendrick, whom the Home Secretary knows well, is sixth on the list in the north-west. We will win that sixth seat only if the result in next year's European parliamentary elections replicates the good result that we had in the north-west in the general election last year, when Labour took 54 per cent. of the vote.
      Mr. Straw: I know that my hon. Friend will work hard for that result, as will the rest of us.
      170
      If we have a regional list system, we must have a system for establishing the ranking for each party. I appreciate some of the concerns of my hon. Friends about the way that the arrangements have worked out within the Labour party, but they have worked out in that way—I do not make a joke of this at all—principally because of the circumstance in which we have had to manage difficult change. We are—as I have said, it is an act of most extraordinary generosity—in practice handing over to other parties seats which we would otherwise win, to support this principle of proportional representation.
      Mr. David Curry: Does the Home Secretary accept that the electoral choice is purely at the margin in the system that he proposes? Of the 87 MEPs to be selected to represent the United Kingdom, about 70 or 75 will know whether they will be elected or not before the election even gets under way. Therefore, it is at the margin—at No. 3 or No. 4 on a list of seven, or at No. 6 or No. 7 on a list of 11—where the only choice is to be made. The rest might just as well pack off and have an early holiday, or investigate the good restaurants in Strasbourg, whether they will be elected or not, and leave the handful who will be at the margin—on the cusp—of that choice to be selected by the electorate.
      Mr. Straw: Things will not work like that, which is my point. Far from the open list system leading to serious voter choice, it will lead to completely arbitrary circumstances. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I said this, but I do not believe for a second that the electorate will stand for circumstances in which candidate X, who gets 500,000 votes, is not elected, and candidate Y, who gets 300,000 votes, is elected. No one will understand that. The idea that we will give the best voter choice in circumstances in which the candidates are not known, and everyone accepts that, seems unreal to me.
      There are other results. Not only regional-list-based elections for the European Parliament are determined at the margin; all elections are determined at the margin, always. Although the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) knew that his party was facing disaster, I guess that he assumed that, whatever happened, he would get elected. The same thing happened on our side in 1983. All elections are determined at the margin, but the open list system would also lead to candidates in a party competing not against the other party, but against one another.
      Mr. Curry: My criticism was of the closed list system, which the Home Secretary is advocating. His point about the open list is that the other place has not changed it sufficiently, so we are locked into a system. He persistently talks about systems as if this Parliament were not competent to choose its own system.
      May I take the Home Secretary's mind back to when this entire debate started, and we began the catalogue of what seems to be a protracted Belgian joke? He was urged to introduce a system under which there was genuinely open choice, but he declined to do so—after much hesitation, which was to his credit. We have now got ourselves stuck where he says that we have a choice between a cataclysm and a catastrophe. It seems that, whichever way the vote in the House goes, we will end up with an inexplicable system.

      171
      In the light of the Prime Minister's commitment to what I understand is supposed to be a Europe more relevant to its citizens, it is curious, if that is the Government's priority, that they have chosen the particular system that they have.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the Home Secretary replies, may I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House that interventions are starting to become extremely long? It would assist the debate if they were brief and to the point.
      Mr. Straw: May I deal with the right hon. Gentleman's last point? He is generally supportive of matters European. The system we propose is used by the majority of European countries and the majority of European voters. That may not make it right, but it makes it more usual.
      Mr. Swayne: The Government's system is as eccentric as those in the amendments.
      Mr. Straw: The suggestion is that the proposed system is somehow eccentric, or an aberration. It is not: it is commonly used in the rest of Europe.
      Dr. Godman rose—
      Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
      Mr. Straw: I shall give way to my two hon. Friends, and then I shall get on with my speech.
      4.30 pm
      Dr. Godman: May I correct what the Home Secretary said a few moments ago? He referred to this unparalleled act of generosity. He and his ministerial colleagues could argue that they were just as generous for the elections to the Scottish Parliament. Come next May, as a Scottish elector I shall have two votes: one for a candidate and one for a party. Reservations about the closed system similar to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) have been voiced in the west and south of Scotland.
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. We have, to a slightly lesser extent—at least, I hope and pray so—been generous in the arrangements for Scotland, which will have an additional member system, as is proposed for Wales. We were committed to the regional list system: that was in our manifesto. For reasons which I need not go into now, we fought and won the election on that proposal. After the election, we brought forward the time for that change, and made it earlier. That was not fully anticipated in our manifesto.
      Mr. Barnes: My right hon. Friend has so far produced two arguments against the amendments. He may have others, but he has been prevented from putting them, as there have been many interventions. One of the arguments is about members of the same party fighting against one another in a contest. That is the problem with the single transferable vote in a multi-Member constituency. The other argument is that, if three people are elected for a party, the person who finishes second or third may have
      172
      fewer votes than a person who is not elected. The person who finishes bottom under the amended system may have been placed top on the central party list.
      Mr. Straw: With an open list, it would be possible for someone to be elected who did not have the unanimous support of the politburo of the Conservative party, the Labour party or the Liberal Democrat party.
      Dr. Godman: Or the Scottish National party.
      Mr. Straw: Or the SNP.
      The point about an open list is that it is not a ranked list: it is simply a list of candidates who have equality on the ballot paper—they are in alphabetical order—and it is supposed to be for the voters to put them in order. However, there is a fundamental problem. Some elected candidates may have fewer votes than candidates who are not elected, and it will unquestionably discriminate against women and people with foreign-sounding names—particularly Asian or Afro-Caribbean.
      It has been accepted that I have given way a great deal. I should like to close my remarks.
      Miss McIntosh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on a point to correct his information?
      Mr. Straw: No. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East, says that there is no such thing as a point of information, but I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that I am giving loads of information.
      The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) referred to my consideration of the Belgian list proposal. I said that I would think about it. We were criticised for thinking about it for too long, but it was important to think about it for a long time before coming to a view one way or another. Our judgment was finely balanced, and we came down against it.
      Miss McIntosh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Straw: For the last time, and it really must be the last time.
      Miss McIntosh: The Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but my distinct understanding is that nine member states have open lists. I am at a loss to understand why we do not want to be with the majority and go for an open list.
      Mr. Straw: I do not think that that is correct. If the Under-Secretary catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will give full information, but I am sorry to say that I am tolerably certain that the hon. Lady is wrong. I refer her to the Library's briefing paper, which has a big chart at the back.
      Under a closed list system, there is no prospect of an anomalous result. Nothing is hidden from the voter. When voters cast their vote for the party of their choice, they can see the order in which that party's candidates will win seats, and they vote with that knowledge. The open list system provided for by the amendments—we are not discussing perfect systems; we are discussing the

      173
      amendment—is much more of a lottery for the voter. His vote will have two functions: to win seats for the party as a whole, and to win a seat for the particular candidate for whom he has voted. An elector who has voted for a candidate who is not elected may feel that he has wasted half his vote.
      Under the closed list system, if the elector intensely dislikes candidates high on the list, he can do what can be done, in extremis, in any ordinary parliamentary election. If he really does not like the person who is standing as his party's candidate, he need not vote for that person. At the margin, we all have something of a personal vote, although I think that in only a few cases has that personal vote swung the result.
      As has been said many times—this point should be noted by Opposition Members, and by certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends—the closed list system is essentially a first-past-the-post system, and first past the post is essentially a closed list system with a list of one. The closed list system has the great benefit of simplicity, which is a consideration that we should not ignore.
      Let me quote from an academic source beloved of the Liberal Democrats, and one or two of my expert friends in the official Opposition. Professor Patrick Dunleavy and Dr. Simon Hix of the London school of economics, and Dr. Helen Margetts of Birkbeck college, said:
      "Open list ballot papers are more complicated. The ballot paper will be much longer because all the candidates will have to be listed with ticked boxes. People may feel obliged to look over all the names, a lengthy business in the South East region where with 11 seats there could be 40 or more candidates … some people such as the elderly, those who have difficulty reading, first time voters, and people who are just attached to the existing way of doing things, may dislike the ballot paper or find it confusing".
      I think that they will definitely find it confusing.
      The document continues:
      "A major study of voting systems carried out just after the 1997 general election (the Democratic Audit report, Making Votes Count) provided good survey evidence that British voters do not like complicated ballot papers with multiple names and tick boxes and strongly prefer simple short ballot papers."
      All parties have been making, or indeed have made, arrangements to contest the next European parliamentary elections on the basis of a closed list system. Some of my hon. Friends have famously celebrated those new arrangements. Candidates for every party have already been selected, and are starting to campaign on that basis. I doubt that each party now wants to overturn all the arrangements, and start again with a different system.
      No electoral system is perfect; all we can do is match the most appropriate electoral system to the body that it is being used to elect. We believe that, with the closed list system that was originally in the Bill, we have found the best match. I am not saying that it is the best system; I am merely saying that it is the best match. It is no coincidence that voters in Germany, France, Spain, Greece and Portugal use it to elect their MEPs.
      Mr. William Cash: They follow a tyranny of the party list.
      Mr. Straw: They constitute the majority of voters in Europe, and the majority will be even larger when we
      174
      adopt the system. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that voters in Luxembourg should carry the same weight as voters in Germany. That is an interesting proposition.
      Of course, the fact that the closed list system is used in those countries is not a reason in itself for us to adopt it, but it shows that we are not embarking on some constitutional innovation.
      Mr. Cash: Does the Home Secretary remember a recent article in which Mr. George Jones of The Daily Telegraph disclosed some of the leaks from the Jenkins commission, which will report on Thursday? They revealed that, during a series of consultation exercises around the country, Lord Jenkins had been taken aback by the hostility towards the idea that introducing some form of proportional representation based on a list system—any list system—would increase party control. The people have shown that they do not like the party list system in any circumstances, be it open or closed.
      Mr. Straw: It is dangerous for the hon. Gentleman to insinuate that the opinion of those who turn up to an open meeting of Lord Jenkins is somehow representative of the public as a whole. The hon. Gentleman could be hoist on a very large petard if he goes down that track. The British public have not had any experience of this system. It is not yet law; it is still a matter for Parliament to decide. Their experience will no doubt be informative, and will help to inform the wider debate on proportional representation.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Straw: No. I must finish.
      The Conservative party is coming to the House in support of an open list system, but I do not believe that it understands the consequences of that system for its party. Moreover, I hope that we are not going to have too many high-blown phrases about how the open list system is morally superior to a closed list system. I remind the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, the shadow Home Secretary, that the closed list system was the one chosen by the government of which he was a member for the elections to the Northern Ireland forum.
      The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), then Prime Minister, said of the closed list system, which the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 provided for:
      "I believe that this is a fair and balanced system that will produce a representative outcome."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 498.]
      That was good enough for him when he was arguing for a closed list system, and it is good enough for us. Of the systems available, the closed list system will produce a fair and balanced system, and a representative outcome. I therefore commend to the House our motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I do not think that that was one of the Home Secretary's more convincing performances. At one point, when about 20 Labour Members were here, it was a matter not so much of his trying to convince us as of his trying to convince them. He was obviously totally unsuccessful. Most of them have now fled, and I am not

      175
      surprised. Even the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), looked rather doubtful by the end of the Home Secretary's speech.[Interruption.] He probably much prefers sitting through his master's speech half asleep—as he obviously is—to being woken up.
      I will say this as a compliment to the Home Secretary: it is always interesting to hear a politician make a case in which he does not believe. It is clear that he did not have his heart in what he said. I am trying to be kind to him. It would be much worse if he believed all the stuff he was saying. If he does believe it, there is no excuse for the dismal case that he made.
      As he waded through his script, the Home Secretary did establish one thing: he would not make a good returning officer. He set out his belief in the regions, but the House did not notice the same underlying belief in proportional representation. Nor am I remotely mollified by my endorsement as a popular Conservative candidate, which the right hon. Gentleman threw in halfway through.
      Once more, the House of Lords has done us a service in allowing us to think again on a fundamental issue regarding next year's European elections. The Government have decreed that those elections will be carried out on the basis of a list system based on the regions. That is not the system that my party wants. I am a strong supporter of the first-past-the-post system and of the constituency base—and as far as I understand his position, so, frankly, is the Home Secretary—but that is not the choice that the House has before of it today.
      The choice that we must make today is whether to support a closed list system where the party ranks the candidates in order of preference and the electors' only choice is which party to vote for, or an open list system, where the electorate have the opportunity to choose which candidates they want to elect.
      Mr. Robathan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Home Secretary, in his defence towards the end of his speech, said that he wanted to go back to the closed list for the convenience of the parties and, I suggest, the power of the parties? He did not like the fact that the party might lose power and be a bit inconvenienced through this amendment.
      4.45 pm
      Sir Norman Fowler: That is entirely the basis on which the argument is advanced—this is for the convenience of the party. What hon. Members on both sides of the House have to decide is what is convenient for, and the desire of, the public. The electorate matter most.
      Given the choice before us—between the closed system and the open list system-1 have no hesitation in saying that the House of Lords was entirely right to vote for the open list system. The alternative was put frankly—although it was not put as frankly by the Home Secretary—by the Minister in the other place, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who said:
      "What we are doing here is offering to the voters a list of party supporters in a way which has been determined by internal party choice."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 1998; Vol. 593, c. 1329.]
      That is on the record. Given that description, I am not surprised that the Lords voted as they did. Lord Williams of Mostyn was entirely accurate in his description,
      176
      however: the list system as proposed by the Government leaves the electorate voting for the party, while the candidates are determined by internal party choice.
      Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Leader of the Opposition, in a brilliant speech at the Centre for Policy Studies on 24 February, said:
      "of all the dangerous and destructive constitutional reforms currently on the table, perhaps the most dangerous and the most destructive is proportional representation"?
      Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whether we are talking about Westminster or the European elections, this is an issue of principle, and that there is a substantial difference between the position that we should adopt and that which was adopted by the House of Lords?
      Sir Norman Fowler: It is certainly an issue of principle. What the Leader of the Opposition said is absolutely correct, but let me give an example of what the system that the Government appear to want so much can mean.
      On 23 September, The Birmingham Post reported that the existing Labour Member of the European Parliament, Christine Oddy, had been displaced as the Labour candidate by a former "EastEnders" actor, Mr. Cashman. Asked what Mr. Cashman knew about the west midlands—and I quote from the report—
      "Labour bosses defended his record in the region saying he acted in 'The Rocky Horror Show' at the Birmingham Rep earlier this year."
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) knows that this is exactly what the Labour party said at the time.
      The case got worse and worse. Miss Oddy told a Cuban solidarity campaign meeting at the Labour party conference:
      "Tony Blair came to Strasbourg in July and he kindly agreed to a five-minute audience with officers from the European Parliamentary Labour Party.
      You can imagine my astonishment when I was kissed on the cheek. I wonder if it was the kiss of the mafia when you see what has happened to me now."
      Dr. Lynne Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is correct to draw attention to some disquiet in the Labour party about the way in which the list has been put together, but, unfortunately, we do not have any opportunity to change that today: it is not what we are debating.
      Sir Norman Fowler: That was a remarkably diplomatic intervention. Following the precedent of Mr. Cashman, the Home Secretary's wet night in King's Lynn would put him on the party's European list for East Anglia.
      Why should the public have candidates foisted on them? The Labour party's selection system has few pretensions to democracy. The Conservative party has one member, one vote, meetings to select, and the Liberal

      177
      Democrats have a postal ballot. However the candidates are selected, they remain party candidates; why should not the electorate be able to make their own choice?
      Mr. Straw: Who selected the right hon. Gentleman?
      Sir Norman Fowler: I was selected by my constituency association.
      Mr. Straw: By the party.
      Sir Norman Fowler: Certainly by the party, but at each election I appear on the ballot paper as a named candidate and people know precisely who I am. People in Sutton Coldfield are not asked to vote for Labour, Conservative or—
      Mr. Straw rose—
      Sir Norman Fowler: The Home Secretary spoke—not very illuminatingly—for about 45 minutes. He can wait a few seconds.
      Our ballot papers at the general election did not say simply "Conservative", "Labour" or "Liberal Democrat"; the names were there. However we dress up the proposed system, the choice will be simply a party choice. Choosing the party will often not be enough. As an example, imagine that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) and Lord Shore were on the same ticket; despite being in the same party, they stand for completely different positions on Europe. Those positions are well understood, and I do not want to argue about which is right.
      I mention Lord Shore because he is one of the Labour peers who voted against the Government on the issue, so he is partly responsible for our discussing this matter again today. Incidentally, another of those who voted against the Government was the Bishop of Blackburn, as the Home Secretary will doubtless be aware.
      Mr. Straw: Whatever the bishop's private view, he is not a Labour peer.
      Sir Norman Fowler: No, but Lord Shore is.
      The choice may be made not on doctrinal grounds but on personal preferences regarding two candidates on the same ticket. For example, if the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry were on the same ticket—they might find it bad enough being in the same Cabinet—the charm and elector appeal of the latter might win through; or it could be the other way round.
      At one stage, some of these arguments appeared to be influencing the emerging view—that is the politest way of putting it—of the Home Secretary, who said on Second Reading:
      "I am prepared to listen to the arguments for adopting a Belgian-type system and to give them careful consideration…we are a party and a Government who listen to argument."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 814.]
      They may listen, but when they have done so they do what they intended to do in the first place.
      178
      Those who have followed the Government's contortions on this issue have come up with alternative explanations for why we are where we are today, none of which, frankly, does the Government much credit. In its parliamentary bulletin, Charter 88 said:
      "The decision came as a surprise to those who followed the debate. All contact with Government gave the impression that adopting the open list was a formality. This included Labour MEPs who were collectively briefed two days before the announcement that the new system would indeed include open lists. The swiftness of the reversal and the lack of a convincing explanation of the decision has led many to believe that it was taken by Tony Blair rather than Jack Straw."
      That is the nearest that the Home Secretary has got to a compliment on his handling of the issue.
      The Home Secretary placed in the Library a description of the Belgian system, then pondered how he could gauge public opinion. Of course, he did what one would expect any fully paid-up member of new Labour to do: he set up some focus groups. He probably set up focus groups to determine whether he should make the concession in the first place.
      It is usual, and not only among Conservative Members, to be offensive about focus groups, and I will not disappoint the House, but in one respect NOP showed a remarkable touch of good taste: it positioned three of its mini-groups in a constituency renowned for its good electoral sense over the past 25 years: Sutton Coldfield. It would be comforting to report that the member of the focus group who said, "There's nothing nicer than knowing your MP", came from my constituency but, sadly, he came from the other place where the discussions took place: the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton).
      There was little doubt about the focus groups' immediate response to the closed list. The conclusion was:
      "Parties appear to be depriving voters of their right to select individuals…party selection begs the question for some as to whether party loyalty will precede constituency loyalty."
      I agree with those comments, but I contest the so-called considered response on the closed list, in which NOP says:
      "Precisely because voters can feel the European Parliament to be remote and dislocated from their own lives and experience, they can be relieved to devolve responsibility to parties to select candidates for them."
      I do not believe that that is a sensible summary of public opinion. People do not say, "All this looks very complex; we will leave it to the parties to decide." That is nonsense. It is not my experience; nor is it remotely in our democratic traditions. It is a patrician view that would put even Lord Jenkins in the shade.
      Mr. Swayne: Is it not grotesque that, having been thrown out by the voters and lost his own seat in the German election, Chancellor Kohl appeared within minutes as a representative in the Parliament, as a consequence of the closed list? Does not the system give rise to the possibility that voters will be represented by candidates who are unpopular?
      Sir Norman Fowler: To be fair, it is a different system, but the principle is the same, and on that my hon. Friend is entirely correct.
      Mr. Straw: I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman a point that none of his colleagues picked up during my

      179
      speech: precisely what the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) fears will happen under the closed list system and claims to have happened under the German additional member system will happen under the open list system. Some of the least popular candidates with the fewest votes will get elected under the open list, in preference to candidates with more votes. Where is the democracy in that?
      Sir Norman Fowler: I shall come to that point. That argument does not invalidate the whole argument about the open and closed lists. There is a broad principle that the Home Secretary, untypically, did not appear to address in the whole of his lengthy speech: the public have a right to be able to choose named candidates within a party. Even with the defect that he pointed out—I do not consider it fundamental—the alternative is far less damaging than anything that he has proposed. The open list system is essentially more democratic, because it gives the public greater choice. I am not persuaded that the rather laborious list of practical difficulties with the open system given by the Home Secretary invalidated that argument.
      One point that I find somewhat puzzling—for once, it has nothing to do with the Home Secretary—was raised in our debate in Committee, on 12 March 1998, when the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, said:
      "The arguments in support of open lists are overwhelming".—[Official Report, 12 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 771.]
      When it came to the vote, however, the Liberal Democrats voted with the Government.
      The same thing happened in the other place, when Lord McNally—who was once a Labour Member but now speaks for the Liberal Democrats—conceded that the Liberal Democrats had argued for an open list but had intended to vote for the closed list.
      Once again, therefore, we hold our breath to learn the attitude of the Liberal Democrats, who have proved yet again that they are the party of the "don't knows" and the chronically undecided.
      5 pm
      Mr. Allan: If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman will not have to hold his breath for too long. For the moment, I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we strongly believe that this group of Lords amendments has been tabled with the intention of stopping the Bill's passage completely. Our voting behaviour has been predicated on that assumption.
      Sir Norman Fowler: That is a pretty weak excuse. Either the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the open list system or he is not in favour of it. I should have thought that he and other Liberal Democrats Members might have the courage to vote in support of their beliefs. Nevertheless, I shall listen—or at least my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) will listen—to the hon. Gentleman's arguments when he is called to speak, as he undoubtedly will be.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said—it is a very important point—we are debating the issue of list systems only 48 hours before Lord Jenkins's commission reports on proportional representation for
      180
      Westminster elections. That report will set off an enormous debate in the United Kingdom. After our debates on clause 3, it will be very interesting to discover whether an open list system is proposed for use with any top-up system that the Jenkins commission may propose. If one is proposed, it will well and truly torpedo the case made by the Government in today's debate.
      Mr. Bermingham: The right hon. Gentleman may recall the first intervention that I made in this debate, during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when I asked a question about d'Hondt. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that—as the choice is simply between an open and a closed system; we have no other choice—opting for the open system would give rise to a nightmare of possibilities and complications with independent candidates?
      Sir Norman Fowler: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the decision is between open list and closed list systems. However, for all the reasons that I have given, I believe that the open system is the more democratic one.
      On the general issue of proportional representation, my position and the Home Secretary's are probably much closer. He supports the first-past-the-post system; and, like me, he also supports the constituency base. It is therefore a mystery why the Government have started this process of electoral change. I tell the right hon. Gentleman quite seriously, however, that, in the coming months, the Opposition will relish the fight that he is beginning.
      Mr. Cash rose—
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments on the fight in which we will be engaged in the next few months. He said that the Government's case would be torpedoed if Lord Jenkins's report on Thursday proves to be in favour of some form of open list system—although my right hon. Friend and I agree that the Government's case has already been torpedoed.
      I should not like Opposition Front Benchers to give credence to anything that Lord Jenkins says about PR on Thursday. The report will be a stitched-up deal between the Prime Minister—who believes in openness and transparency, except when it comes to what he does and wants—the Liberal Democrats and Lord Jenkins. My right hon. Friend has a hugely important role to play in the fight, in which we shall have to become engaged, for the first-past-the-post system.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I agree with every word he said. My point was that the Government will be self-destructing—which is perhaps a better description of what will happen than "torpedoed"—even if their own terms are met.
      Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Conservative party is in principle against the idea of proportional representation? I entirely agree with him that it would be an enormous own goal for the Government if Lord Jenkins reported in favour of a form of open list. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the Conservative party is against proportional representation, it would be

      181
      far better for us to come clean on that and simply go for it by saying, "We are against the idea of open or closed lists"—and to leave it at that?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now straying outside the scope of Lords amendment No. 1, which—as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) stated a moment ago—deals with a closed or open list system for the European parliamentary elections. I hope that he will remember his own observation.
      Sir Norman Fowler: You make it quite difficult for me not to remember it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless—if I may say it in a few words—I agree with my hon. Friend's comments.
      I do not want a regional list system, but if we are to have one, I believe that an open list system will be intrinsically more democratic and a better choice than the one proposed by the Government. Such a system would give the electorate the opportunity to decide who will serve them and not leave that decision in the hands of political parties. It would also prevent any political party from exercising even more centralised power. Above all, I believe that it is what the public would prefer. I therefore believe that we should reject the Home Secretary's advice and agree with the Lords amendments.
      Mr. Bermingham: I do not propose to detain the House for long. 1 spoke in the debate on Second Reading and said that I did not like the proposed system. I said that I thought that that system was bad because it divorced the elected from the electors, and I stand by that view. I make it very clear that, if Lord Jenkins suggests anything other than our current constituency system, he will have my undying opposition. I say that openly.
      As I told the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) a few moments ago, today's debate is about a choice between a closed list and an open one. I do not like closed lists, but nor am I very enamoured of open ones. However—if one is to be utterly realistic about the mess in which we will find ourselves next summer—unfortunately, we will have to go with the closed list system, for the following reasons.
      The first reason is based on the participation of independent candidates. If we use an open list system in, for example, the north-west region, which will have nine or 11 candidates—
      Mr. Robert N. Wareing: There will be 10 candidates.
      Mr. Bermingham: Yes. If we use an open list in the north-west, and candidate No. 6, for example, wins a vote, the other nine candidates—of whichever party, whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat—will receive no vote.
      I stand to be corrected if I have misunderstood the Home Secretary's explanation of the system, but I seem to have got it right. I must admit that the first thought that came into my head when the Home Secretary said that "d'hondt" is Flemish for "dog" was the advertisement for toilet paper in which the puppy runs away with the
      182
      expanding toilet roll. The Home Secretary's explanation seemed to be going the same way. Ultimately, the mess will certainly be the same.
      If the explanations given to the House in this debate are right, the candidates from the major parties—I equate all three parties as the same in English constituencies—will find themselves at a disadvantage. It will only take someone in the north-west—Fitzsimons McGibben, for example—to decide to run as an independent. Under the open list system, that person will receive a vote that none of the major parties will receive. Which seat is that candidate going after? How many votes does he get? What is their value? That is the problem if we go with the open list system. Currently, with the closed list system, that problem does not arise, because his vote is of the same value as a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat vote. He will take his place under the d'Hondt system in the totality of votes when it comes to the allocation of places.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Home Secretary—this sums up the argument—that the closed proportional representation system provides for a simple ballot paper and that the open list system provides for name recognition but too complicated a ballot paper, but that the beauty and virtue of the first-past-the-post system is that it provides for name recognition on a simple ballot paper?
      Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman and I are totally ad idem. The closed system is simple. Whether we like it or not, in the north-west an open list system would mean 33 major candidates listed on the ballot paper and goodness knows how many independents. The elector would have to select, which would be very complicated. We know from studies that have been undertaken that, when faced with over complex voting papers, people get fed up and do not want to vote.
      We also know that, when voters cannot identify with a candidate, they are reluctant to vote. The turnout in June will be absolutely fascinating. I suspect that it will be disastrous.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: It was disastrous last time.
      Mr. Bermingham: I agree, but I suspect that this time it will be even more disastrous. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would agree, in that event, that any form of proportional representation is more disastrous than non-proportional representation. No doubt he will reflect that intelligence in the way he votes in future.
      I should like the Home Secretary to consider one point. Next June will certainly be experimental in terms of the voting system. Could we also consider experimenting with the voting day? The rest of Europe will vote on a Sunday; why do we not do likewise? It might be a useful opportunity to try two experiments at once. I have an open

      183
      mind as to whether Thursday or Sunday is best, but if we are to have an election with a low turnout, as I fear we are, we could at least try changing the day.
      Mr. John D. Taylor: Why does the hon. Gentleman say that the rest of Europe votes on a Sunday when some countries do not?
      Mr. Bermingham: I entirely forgot about my homeland, and I apologise immediately. Not all countries vote on Sunday, but the majority of Europe does—with two notable and remarkable exceptions.
      In all seriousness, I suggest to the Home Secretary that next June might be an opportunity to experiment with the voting day. What has worried me in the past 15 years has been the decline in local government election turnouts, which is becoming disastrous in some areas. In my area, it was pathetic this year. The general election turnout also began to slip away—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman probably anticipates what I am about to say. He has embroidered his argument a little too much and is dealing with matters that are outside the strict terms of the amendment.
      Mr. Bermingham: Your tolerance in allowing me to go so far was much appreciated, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I have made my point, and I shall return to the fundamental issue.
      My respectful view is that it is too late to turn back the clock. It is sad that I should have to say that, but that is the reality of life today.
      Mr. Allan: The electorate can take heart from the fact that no single political party is entirely happy with the European election system. The fact that we all have a problem with it may mean that it is fairer than one that was welcomed with open arms by one of the three major parties and disapproved of by the others.
      My party's position remains consistent. Our preferred option is neither a Belgian nor a Finnish model, but one closer to home—the Northern Irish model of the single transferable vote. That system is not on the agenda, and we now have to choose between the Finnish system, which has appeared at this very late stage in an amendment supported by the Conservative Members in another place, and the closed list system, which was agreed at an earlier stage of the Bill's proceedings.
      The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) challenged my party's record. I feel that we had a good record in seeking an open list system. We proposed the Belgian list system at earlier and appropriate stages of the Bill. Indeed, there was a vote on it in another place in June this year, which we lost by only 15. Remarkably, the Conservatives in another place did not support us at that time. They have failed to vote consistently throughout the passage of the Bill when the Home Secretary, to his credit, was considering opening the list system. We are now up against the end of the Session, and they have at this late stage sent the Bill, amended, back to this place.
      My colleagues in another place were unable to support the amendment because, as many Conservatives confessed, the clear intention behind the amendment was to wreck the Bill and have no proportional system at all.
      Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman has studied the transcript, so he must know perfectly well that what he has just said is simply not the case. Three Liberal Democrats supported the open list system. I may not agree with it, but the hon. Gentleman cannot get away with his assertion that all Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords took a different view.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Allan: I should point out that five Liberal Democrats supported the amendment and 32 voted the other way. Our Members are lightly whipped—that is part of the tradition of our party, especially in another place where whipping is often less effective than in this place. We did not support anything that would wreck the Bill.
      The important thing at this stage is to complete the process and pass the Bill. The choice is not between an open and a closed list, but between the first-past-the-post system and a fair vote system. We have worked consistently for a fair vote system. We had an agreement with the party that is now in government, which was declared and open before the election. There was no secrecy about the fact that we wanted to embark on a joint constitutional programme for reform, and that the reform of the European voting system was an essential part of that. That agreement spelled out a regional list system. We have stuck by our part of the bargain against our first choice because, in all constitutional reforms, it is important to achieve a glass that is half full, if that is all that is on the table, rather than one that is completely empty. Negotiations require some compromise.
      At this stage, the priority is not to have the first-past-the-post system, which the Home Secretary, more eloquently than I have ever heard him before, today described as a closed list system of one. He made some telling points, especially about a conceit sometimes held by politicians that they are elected solely on a personal basis, whereas when one knocks on doors during the election, people say that they are voting for that Tony Blair, that Paddy Ashdown or that William Hague. The priority for many electors is to vote on a party basis. That is especially so at the European level, when many voters vote not for an individual, but for a party.
      We want more openness in the selection for the list system. If we are to move towards elections on this basis, there is a need to debate the nature of our primary system, which is effectively what we are developing. Our party chose to conduct that debate on a one member, one vote basis. The Conservatives, to their credit, did likewise. We shall not go into the debates that are taking place within the Labour party, but there is clearly some concern that there is no common basis on which people are selected for important positions. We hope that we shall return to that issue when we consider electoral systems in future.
      We should like to think that, after the coming European election, we can reconsider the closed versus the open list, but the pressure of time means that we have to decide whether we go forward with a deal that offers a fair vote system for next year, so that we can avoid what happened in 1994, when the Labour party ended up with something like three quarters of the seats on less than half the vote. That is not only bad for democracy in this country, but destabilises the entire European parliamentary process. People are unhappy about returning inappropriate numbers of Members who will form into larger groups, all of which are elected under different systems.

      185
      We want to reconsider the Northern Irish system, which we believe to be excellent, and open and closed lists, but we do not intend to support a wrecking amendment on behalf of a party that wants to retain first past the post. If that party continues in its present vain, it will do much to depress the vote at the next European elections, as its members continually talk down the system that we have chosen, saying how poor it is and how difficult it will be to operate. A system under which three or four party names and independent candidates are listed will be perfectly simple to operate. Electors will be able to use it if only we can get them to the polling stations. We should concentrate on getting people to vote rather than on the detail of the ballot papers and other such matters with which people are not overly concerned.
      We do not agree with the amendment. We shall stick with the Bill and aim for its implementation at the earliest opportunity. As we have done throughout the proceedings on the Bill, we shall consistently argue our case without seeking to obstruct the Bill's implementation.
      Mr. Cash: I agree, for all the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), that we should oppose the closed list system of proportional representation in the Bill. I was delighted that, at the end of his speech, he revealed that he agreed with my case, which I shall now develop, that we should oppose proportional representation in principle.
      We object to the closed list system because, by having massive electorates of 6 million, it destroys the link between the Member of the European Parliament and the voter, and it is the progenitor of European regions, which are all part and parcel of the creation of a federal Europe, divided into provinces. The Jenkins commission, which will report on Thursday, has been left in no doubt during its sittings about the hostility of the British people to proportional representation because of the extent to which it increases party control.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman to focus on the content of the debate. He has declared his opinion on a particular matter, but that cannot be debated within the context of the amendment.
      Mr. Cash: Far be it from me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a long-standing colleague of yours on the Select Committee on European Legislation and many other bodies, to doubt your judgment on these matters. However, the amendment proposes an open list system, whereas the Bill proposes a closed list system. It is therefore imperative that we have a proper discussion about their relative merits and, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) pointed out, the principle of proportional representation.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. If he wishes to remain in order, he will confine himself to a discussion of open and closed list systems. He cannot use the debate to open up a discussion on the principle of proportional representation.
      Mr. Cash: I am simply making a point about the Lords amendment. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for
      186
      Sutton Coldfield, that as the amendment is unnecessary, Conservative Members must ask ourselves whether we would be prepared to take our argument to its logical conclusion.
      We shall not win the vote on the amendment today, but the Bill will return to the other place and there will be to-ing and fro-ing between the two Houses. The key question will be whether we are prepared to invoke the Parliament Act 1911 on a question of principle for an unnecessary amendment. I very much doubt that that will happen. I am therefore distinctly cynical about the reasons why we have decided that we shall support the Lords in this venture. The amendment is a Trojan horse, and in supporting an open list system, the Lords and the Conservative party are hiding inside that horse only two days before it will be opened by Lord Jenkins.
      As the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), said in an excellent speech on 24 February 1998:
      "Of all the dangerous and destructive constitutional reforms currently on the table, perhaps the most dangerous and the most destructive is proportional representation."
      He went on:
      "It is a profoundly undemocratic measure masquerading under the banner of democracy and the Conservative party I lead will have no truck with it."
      He continued:
      "We most resolutely reject proportional representation itself."
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not been trapped by his notes into ignoring my ruling. I do not want to hear argument on the principle of proportional representation.
      Mr. Cash: I do not need to argue on the principle, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the open list system is proportional and based on a list, and the fact that voters might change the order of names on the list does not alter that one jot.
      On 26 February, only two days after the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, we were given a three-line Whip on an amendment similar, if not identical, to the one that we are now considering, which was in favour of a variant of proportional representation. The open list system of proportional representation, which guarantees proportionality in relation to the parties because they receive the total vote cast for the candidates, gives only a minor say to the electorate, who might want to vote for someone who is not on the party list, so there is no great merit in us supporting the open list system. I abstained on that occasion, as I shall tonight. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and discussed the matter with him.
      As I said at the time, all we needed to do in February was vote against Labour's closed list system and press for the current method—first past the post—which is simple and well understood, and was agreed to by a Labour Government in 1977. Article 190 of the Amsterdam treaty, in the arrangements for the treaty on European Union, allows for a system which is
      "in accordance with principles common to all Member States"—
      a democratic system, such as first past the post.

      187
      On 26 February, the Government got their vote. There has been much opposition in the other place to student grants and transport measures, and defeats for the Government on fundamental issues. We might therefore reasonably have expected that on a form of proportional representation that, to quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks again, is
      "perhaps the most dangerous and the most destructive",
      we should have encouraged the Lords to amend the Bill to first past the post and have a battle on that important issue. That was emphatically not a manifesto question.
      The Lords, by 445 to 176 votes, refused to amend the Maastricht treaty, and refused to allow a national referendum. They returned the Amsterdam treaty this year with a mouse of an amendment that was probably ultra vires. They now propose a system of proportional representation to which I take great exception because an open system is of no value to us whatsoever. What other explanation can there be? Why are we faced with the amendment?
      I am reminded of Disraeli's great novel, "Coningsby", in which, after the Tamworth manifesto, he so clearly set out his position on the state of the Conservative party. He said:
      "There was indeed considerable shouting about what they called Conservative principles; but the awkward question naturally arose, what will you conserve?"
      Before the Jenkins report is published, I ask the House and my party, do we regard PR, which includes the open and closed list systems, as dangerous and destructive or do we not? Do we regard PR as profoundly undemocratic or do we not? Will we have truck with it or will we not?
      I read the speech of our spokesman in the House of Lords, as I heard my right hon. Friend today. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said:
      "The amendment does not damage the Bill. My view is that it improves the Bill because it improves the PR method being used."
      He went on:
      "But we are not arguing for or against PR; we are arguing inside the PR system."—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 20 October 1998; Vol. 593, c. 1332.]
      That is a Trojan horse indeed. We are arguing inside the PR system. You will be glad to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is not just a question of principle; it is also a matter of practicality.
      .It is unnecessary for us to adopt the open list system. We could have opposed it, demanded first past the post and insisted on it in the House of Lords. If we were going to lose the vote eventually, going against our principles would make no difference. Why do we have this hostage to fortune? There is no party advantage for us in an open list system.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant of the hon. Gentleman, but he is developing a point that should have been developed—indeed, probably was developed—on Second Reading. We are debating a Lords amendment that deals with two forms of proportional representation. I remind him for the final time to confine his remarks to that argument.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Cash: What I was just saying is directly relevant to the open list system. There is no electoral party advantage for us in an open list system. That what I said
      188
      when you intervened, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is no evidence that we would gain any more seats by adopting it. That is relevant to the consequences of adopting an open list system. Given the poor turnout in our selection process, which, as I understand it, was only 1 per cent. in the west midlands, and the number of candidates with a proven track record in favour of monetary union and federalism, I cannot say that the open or closed list system has done us any favours.
      The Liberals would be the main beneficiaries of the open list system, as they would be of a closed list system, for the reasons just given by the hon. Member for Hallam. He knows that this is part of a process that gives the Liberals an advantage because they want a fair votes system. Another objection on the grounds of practicality is that the Labour party is deeply divided and unhappy about proportional representation, closed or open. Why take the pressure off Labour? As one Member of the European Parliament has said:
      "It is much easier to represent a percentage than a constituency. You don't get any letters from a per cent."
      Apart from the issue of principle, there are deep flaws in the open list system. The ballot paper is horribly complicated and has a wide range of boxes and permutations. In the South-east, there would be at least 40 candidates' names and tick boxes, not to mention an accumulation of minor parties. The voters would be faced with confusing alternatives: to vote for a party or to vote for particular candidates. That would make it difficult for first time voters and for the elderly. A recent study by the Democratic Audit Report showed, as did George Jones's article in The Daily Telegraph,that British voters do not like complicated ballot papers. They do not care whether the system is open or closed; they do not like it. Already, only 36 per cent. vote in European elections in this country. The complications inherent in an open or closed system will simply drive voters away.
      The example of proportional representation in other countries is not good, as New Zealand or the dreadful experience of the Weimar republic in the 1930s show. Such systems lead to the manipulation of the party system by the tyranny of the party list. Politicians elected in that way represent no one. The list system sucks the democratic system dry, and drains away real argument and debate. That is the case against the open list system as much as against the closed list system. The Conservatives should have nothing to do with it, whatever the House of Lords may propose. After all, we are the elected Chamber. For real Conservatives, accepting such arrangements for the House of Commons or for the European Parliament would undermine the democratic process.
      I conclude with the famous words of John Dewey in his book "Freedom and Culture":
      "The serious threat to our democracy is not the existence of foreign totalitarian states. It is the existence within our own personal attitudes and within our own institutions of conditions which have given a victory to external authority, discipline, uniformity and dependence upon the leader in foreign countries. The battlefield is accordingly here"—
      I would say, in this House—
      "within ourselves and our institutions."
      I agree. I shall abstain on the amendment for those reasons and I urge as many of my colleagues as possible to do so as well.
      Mr. David Curry: I should like to go back to one of the Home Secretary's first remarks.

      189
      It is easy for the debate to become a cabaret—a sort of "Fawlty Towers"—in Westminster, but it merits serious attention. We may occasionally think that foreigners sometimes listen to the debate and draw conclusions from it. The Home Secretary said that we needed an electoral system that was appropriate to the institution. The Government seem to think that the appropriate electoral system for the European Parliament is one that maximises anonymity. That is not a good judgment.
      People may or may not like the European Parliament. I have served in it, and my feeling is that despite all its efforts to fail, it is condemned to succeed. It is acquiring an increasing number of functions that affect people's ordinary lives. In a mature democracy, people need to be able to understand and develop a relationship with the institutions that govern them. That is true of institutions here and overseas. The forging of that identity should be one of the criteria leading to a judgment of what is a sensible electoral system. The Government's proposals will not achieve such a system.
      Any list system is defective. The Home Secretary was right when he almost challenged the legitimacy of all of us, on the ground that somebody at some stage nominates us to go before the electorate. If we apply such an absolutist rule, none of us is popularly elected in the abstract sense. However, it is more important to try to establish an identity for the European Parliament that will work. It has had problems with its identity because it does not develop or support a Government, so the choice of the people is not easily reflected in policy differentials.
      Where people stand on a list is a secondary issue. Who chooses the list is crucial, because those people set the framework within which the democratic rules will play. If I have understood the Home Secretary's words, the objection to the open list is based on the requirement to total all the votes cast for all the candidates of one party and use that as the basis for a division. It is possible that a candidate for party A who may have ridden on the coat tails of a popular candidate would be elected with fewer votes than a candidate for party B who had been less successful in riding on coat tails. We have to take that risk, because it will mitigate the power of the apparatchiks to make the choice. That is what people are most allergic to.
      Mr. David Drew: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, but they would have been more convincing if they had been brought forward on Second Reading. I do not remember any Conservatives arguing for the open list system on Second Reading.
      Mr. Curry: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my remarks on Second Reading. He will remember that, at that stage, the Home Secretary was still in an open frame of mind about what electoral system he would finally choose. We tried to urge him to opt for some variant of the open system.
      It is dangerous to say that people need crutches when they vote—that we must not make the process too complicated because they will not understand it. We must trust people to be able to make their own choices and, if they have a determination to vote, to be able to understand the ballot paper. After all, some of the questions that have
      190
      accumulated on the ballot paper in the United States could not be much more complicated and, as has been said, nine member states of the European Union operate some form of open system. Despite the sympathy for foreigners with which I am sometimes reproached in my party, I believe that, on the whole, the British are just as capable of fathoming a ballot paper, making a choice and demonstrating as great a determination to vote as anybody else when they think that something important is at stake.
      Something important is at stake. The importance of an open system is that it mitigates the apparatchik role, which all parties have, in a sense, experienced. The Liberal Democrats conducted a postal vote—democratically. All members of the Conservative party, as long as they had been members for some time, were able to take part in a vote. Although taking part in all-day sessions to choose European candidates is a fairly grisly incentive to join the party, no doubt some people joined for that purpose none the less. The Labour party conducted a very closed committee system, which no doubt produces a finely tuned, perfectly balanced result by gender, race and everything else—except, I suspect, affinity for the Prime Minister. I doubt that a great deal of diversity of choice has been permitted in that list. All that means that the electorate's choice is being narrowly framed.
      Mr. Allan: On complexity of ballot papers, which I have heard some people raise in opposition to any of the systems that we are discussing, it is worth bearing in mind that the Northern Irish electorate has, for many years, happily used several different systems and, under the single transferable vote system, very complex ballot papers.
      Mr. Curry: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is dangerous to say that people cannot understand. That is but one stage away from wondering why we should bother giving them a choice at all in case it is misused.
      People should be given a choice; they should be given a chance to overturn the apparatchiks' work. Let us take the Conservative party. As members, we voted through a series of regional assemblies, which has produced a list of candidates placed in order. Some of those candidates give me not the slightest inconvenience, and I shall vote cheerfully for them. Indeed, in Yorkshire and Humber, where I shall be voting, I am delighted with the candidates on our list.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) will, however, understand if I say that my enthusiasm for one or two of them is slightly muted. As someone who lives in the regions, I would want to be able to make my own choice. I would say, "Why can't I decide which Conservatives I want on the list?" That applies equally to a Labour man or a Liberal Democrat. There are different, but all perfectly legitimate, strands of the parties; I do not question the legitimacy of any of them. Why should not I be able to choose which candidate I want to fly my flag in the elections?
      It comes down to a system in which, despite the Home Secretary's reflections on the way in which we in this House are selected, there is an election at the absolute margin. One is faced with a list and votes for a party. Candidates at the head of the list know that they will be Members of the European Parliament. Unless there is some electoral earthquake, we know pretty well who will

      191
      be in and who will be out. A handful of places in the middle of the list are worth disputing. The situation is worse if there is a national list, such as in France, where only two or three candidates need stay in the country to fight the election because it is not worth the others' time to do so. We are inviting the electorate to endorse a candidate, not to make a choice. Even the open list is a form of endorsement, because the number of candidates and their names are chosen elsewhere—although at least it allows backroom wisdom to be overthrown, which is essential.
      The risk of having identikit candidates chosen by apparatchiks will do nothing to help the European Parliament. As I have said before, the European Parliament, whether we like it or not—I quite do, as a matter of fact—fulfils a democratic role that is unlikely to be fulfilled by national parliaments. The need is for national parliaments and the European Parliament to work together more effectively so that real accountability may be achieved. You are glaring at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with a somewhat baleful expression. I fear that I may have strayed rather wide of the mark.
      The key is ensuring that the electoral system for the European Parliament tries to reinforce the legitimacy of a parliament that is enshrined in a treaty, which plays an increasing role in people's lives, which is subject to increasing lobbying, which is increasingly part of a balance of institutions, and which is likely to increase in its authority—in co-operation, I hope, with national parliaments. If we choose a system that makes the European Parliament an anonymous institution and people cast an anonymous vote, we shall not be helping the processes of democracy. If we seek at least to give people an element of choice, enabling them to pick a name, we shall be adding to accountability in the European Union, where the burning question is the effectiveness of such accountability. If we do that, we shall have achieved just a little revolt, which will serve the principles of democracy.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Robert Syms: It is a great pity that, towards the end of debates on this Bill, we are debating closed and open lists. When one constructs an electoral system, that is the first point that one needs to decide. Everything determined afterwards is interlinked. The size of regions and what sort of link one wants between constituents and areas are pretty critical.
      Our biggest problem today is that we have heard from the Home Secretary, whose arguments I found persuasive, that the Bill is so bad that it is unamendable—the regions are so large. It is true that, if we had an open list, 20, 30, or 40 members could be on it. It is also true that it is unlikely that, unless the candidate happens to be an actor from "EastEnders", he will be known in any household. That is a great indictment of the Government. We are trying to discuss how best electors can influence their representatives yet, at the end of a long Session, we have a Bill that is almost unamendable, and we cannot give electors a real choice in whom they want to represent them.
      The Government's principal argument is that the proposed electoral system will work only if the decision on who will be No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4 or No. 5 on the list is taken by political parties. They say that to try to work an open list system would cause a great deal of
      192
      difficulty. The system's construction is such that, in effect, it will work only if a centralised party structure determines the choices and then puts them before the electorate. That is the biggest difficulty with this legislation.
      How one wants electors to influence choice should be the first point of debate, not the last. This debate relates to every other clause of the Bill. I shall vote with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench—although I have some sympathy with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—simply because this is such a bad Bill that I feel like voting at every opportunity against the Government. The Bill is not unamendable. As the Home Secretary pointed out, parties have already chosen their candidates. We are coming to the end of the Session, and implementing change at this stage would cause chaos and difficulty.
      Any list system has many disadvantages. Indeed, because the way in which the list is constructed, we could just as easily have a national list and be voting for 87 people. I got the impression that, as we worked through the Bill, the Government decided that they would proceed on a regional basis. If we want to influence voters' choice, we must have geographical areas or subdivisions of the country in which people are able to make informed choices.
      The difficulty is that the Bill has been so badly constructed—even from day one—that only a party-controlled list system, such as France's, will work with it. I shall join my colleagues in the Lobby because I believe that 1 ought to register my protest that the Bill will not make a good Act. As an opponent of proportional representation, I think that its only saving grace is that, when people find that they have a choice of voting only Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative or independent, it will do the cause of those who support PR no good. I take some comfort from that.
      Miss McIntosh: The treaty of Maastricht allows for a uniform electoral system to be set up throughout the European Union. I record my regret that the House has not taken advantage of the opportunity to introduce first past the post as just such a system, under the treaty, because there is great merit in that system and it would have won much support throughout the European Union.
      Mr. Beith: Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that the member countries of the European Union that have used proportional systems for decades—in some cases almost 100 years—would be prepared to adopt first past the post for European elections?
      Miss McIntosh: I am persuaded by the Government's arguments that they are going not by a majority of member states who use an open list, but by the majority of populations in those member states; and I am reliably informed that 49 per cent. of people eligible to vote in the world use first past the post. If one has the best electoral system in the world, it is ripe for export. I am sure that, given time, we would have obtained the support of the majority of those—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady has finished with that point. She heard my previous rulings.
      Miss McIntosh: Thank you for your help, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      193
      There are no compelling arguments to reject an open list system—quite the contrary. Given that we have lost the argument on first past the post for elections to the European Parliament, the arguments in favour of an open list are very compelling indeed.
      At the time we previously visited the Bill, the Government made a firm commitment to conduct an apolitical campaign throughout the country on the merits of the system that they are proposing. I have not seen much evidence of information about that system; that worries me. I wonder whether the Government are praying in aid the idea that they may have an open mind on changing the system to an open list. The Home Secretary felt that there would be no support among the political parties for moving at this stage to an open list. I should like to think that Conservative Members continue to keep an open mind on these matters, and that we might keep the candidates that have been adopted on our list, and simply move from a closed to an open list system.
      The Home Secretary did not manage to persuade me of the reasons why he and other Labour Members do not want an open list. Usually, there are more abstentions in a European Parliament election than in any other election. In the most recent European elections, we reached the giddy heights of a 38 per cent. turnout. I am not sure of the figures for spoilt ballot papers.
      I should not like to disparage the electors by suggesting that they cannot cope with the number of disparate ballot papers, but I wonder what the Home Secretary will do to dispel confusion about the many different electoral systems that will be used in the United Kingdom in the coming months.
      In May 1999, in England and Wales, local elections will be held under the first-past-the-post system. In Scotland and Wales, there will be the first elections to the Parliament for Scotland and a Welsh Assembly, under a different system, using proportional representation. In June, in mainland Great Britain, in the European Parliament elections, we shall vote under the system that we are debating this afternoon. However, in Northern Ireland there will be a different system for elections to the European Parliament. I gather that yet another system of proportional representation is being considered for elections to regional assemblies—the next stage of constitutional developments.
      I think that I should be hard put—I put it no higher—to cope with five different proportional representation systems. It worries me that, at this late stage, we have not seen any evidence of the Government's informing the voting public as to how we are to proceed. We ran what might be called—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is again straying on to a much wider point. We are discussing whether, in the European parliamentary elections, there should be an open or a closed list system. I ask her to confine her remarks to that point.
      Miss McIntosh: On that point, I have yet to find a member of the voting public who is familiar enough with the ballot paper on which they will be asked to vote, under an open or a closed list system. We must persuade
      194
      members of the voting public to go out and vote, by persuading them that, under an open list system, they will have some choice in the matter. In local government elections and European Parliament elections, our biggest hurdle is getting the vote out. I do not believe that Labour Members would argue with that. Usually, turnout is 70 per cent. at general elections and as low as 35 per cent. to 38 per cent. in local government and European Parliament elections.
      I am persuaded that an open list is the answer because this will be the first time, in my experience, that an elector will be unable to vote for an individual candidate, but must vote for a slate of candidates. I have taken up the matter with returning officers in at least three parts of the country who will be called on to police the new system for the first time. There is great concern that there will be confusion among the electorate, especially among first-time voters who will vote one way in May and another in June, but also among older voters who tend to prefer the use of a single system in all elections.
      There is very great anxiety—on which I should like some satisfaction from the Government this afternoon—that there will be not only a lower turnout but in all probability a record number of spoilt ballot papers, because the voters will not understand that they must vote for a slate of candidates. The Bill says that, if any other mark is entered on the list of main party candidates—Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat—that paper must be treated as a spoilt ballot paper. Another possibility is that there will be a great surge of voting for independent candidates—for a television personality, for example—because, by doing so, voters can vote for a single name on the ballot paper.
      There are extremely compelling arguments in favour of an open list system. It is not too late to change from a closed list to an open list. An open list will enable the electorate to vote for an actual candidate and, following the election, it will maintain a democratic link between the elector and the elected Member of the European Parliament. I therefore commend the open list system to the House; I hope that we obtain a majority in its support.
      Mr. David Ruffley: I wish to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), but I have much sympathy with the comments of hon. Friends who have said that this is a rotten Bill—a Bill which introduces proportional representation, which is wholly undesirable. However, I shall not try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The question of closed list versus open list goes to the heart of an important constitutional principle, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) touched on twice—the principle that the individual elector should have the right to choose an individual Member of Parliament or Member of the European Parliament. For the first time in modern democracy in this country, the voter will be denied that right.
      This is not just an arcane debate. The power that will be concentrated in party headquarters, not merely in the case of the Labour party but in the case of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party, is profoundly unhealthy. After a term of Parliament, there may be electors who are not happy about the MEP, whether he is a Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative MEP, who

      195
      is top of the list. Under the proposed arrangements, if a sitting MEP wants to be readopted by his party, he is more likely to be reselected if he has toed the party line. That will inevitably lead to slavishness on the part of those at the top of the list under a closed list system.
      6 pm
      Those concerns are not expressed on a party political basis. Lord Shore of Stepney observed in another place that such a system would lead to cronyism. Lord Bruce of Donington argued in incendiary terms that it would not be dissimilar to communism and central party committee control.
      The democratic right of an individual elector in Britain to remove an elected Member of Parliament who has not done the job or who may have put party before constituency will be denied by the closed party list. I know that the Minister and the Home Secretary take seriously such matters of principle. I should like to hear the Minister's response not to arcane arguments about closed and open lists, but to that issue of democratic principle.
      I take issue with a point raised by the Home Secretary. He slipped into the convenient jargon describing first past the post as equivalent to a closed list of one. That is not entirely correct. Under a first-past-the-post system, when a Member of Parliament is not to the liking of a voter for whatever reason—possibly because of his views on abortion or on euthanasia—the voter can choose not to vote for that Member of Parliament. If, for similar reasons, a voter does not like an MEP at the top of a closed list and does not vote for him, he will also deny his vote to the second, third and fourth person on that list. There is therefore no equivalence between a closed list of one, allegedly, under the first-past-the-post system, and a closed list under the arrangements proposed in the Bill.
      Mr. Beith: There is a straightforward equivalence. In both cases, if a voter withholds his or her vote from the candidate or the list because of some disagreement with a candidate, he denies that vote to the party. Under both systems, a voter cannot express an individual choice without, in effect, giving aid and comfort to another party. That is a dilemma that voters face under our present system.
      Mr. Ruffley: The vote will be denied to more than one candidate under the system proposed to us in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman and I are both right.
      The Home Secretary adduced some deeply unconvincing arguments in support of the closed list system, echoing some of the unpersuasive arguments presented by the Minister in another place, Lord Williams of Mostyn. Some of the arguments in favour of the closed list were incredible. The noble Lord said that we were not living in an Athenian democracy. The implication was that it did not matter who the individual candidate was, because in any case people vote for a party.
      At the margin, that is certainly not true. An MEP may have been voted in and have performed abysmally, or proved to be a scoundrel, but there is no possibility of removing a named individual. I raised that matter earlier, and I should like to hear the Minister's response.
      One of the other arguments enlisted in another place and hinted at by the Home Secretary today was that the ballot paper would become too long and difficult to understand. However, if the amendment were accepted, the open list proposals would involve minimal changes to the ballot paper.
      196
      It is ludicrous of a Minister in another place to suggest that, if an open list system were adopted, it would take too long for a voter to make up his or her mind: voters would be in the polling booth for too long. I find those lines of argument from Ministers in support of the closed list system deeply unsatisfactory. I am shocked and amazed that the democratic process, which is subtle and sometimes complex, should be criticised on the basis that voters might spend too long in the polling booth.
      I take issue with the interpretation that the Home Secretary placed on some of the focus group evidence that is in the public domain. I am not one of those Conservative Members who attack "focus group fascism". There may well be a role for focus groups for political parties. The formulation of policy may be assisted or modified by the use of such groups.
      The evidence from NOP, and the ICM evidence which, I believe, the Democratic Audit has used and on which Charter 88 has done some work, suggests that voters resent the fact that their right to choose individual candidates would be taken away by a closed list system. In a Democratic Audit poll, 40 per cent. of voters resented the fact that they would not have an individual choice of candidate. The Home Secretary glossed over such evidence, but I hope that the Minister will respond. The evidence points towards more support for an open list system.
      This is a rotten Bill. The arguments deployed by Ministers have been unconvincing and unpersuasive. By accepting the amendment, the damage might be limited. The entire Bill goes against the grain of constitutional principle, and grievously diminishes democracy in this country. In that spirit of constructive opposition, I hope that the Minister will answer the questions I have posed.
      Mr. David Winnick: First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I had other duties in the House; otherwise I should have been present for most of the debate.
      I find it a little strange to hear Conservative Members lecturing us about democracy, considering the lack of democracy until recently in their party.
      I am not in favour of the closed list system. I did not vote for it on Second Reading, and I do not intend to vote for it tonight. However, it can be said to the credit of my party in government that I do not remember the last time any Government introduced an electoral system that could substantially reduce the number of their own elected representatives. Given the present number of Labour MEPs, one can speculate that there would be fewer as a result of a change in the electoral system. I hope that that will not happen, but no Conservative Member could challenge that possibility. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was right to say that the Government were being generous.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, whether we have an open list or a closed list, that will not alter the number of Members elected by each party—it will merely determine who they are as individuals?
      Mr. Winnick: Yes. However, I am talking about the basic change in the system that will be applied next year instead of the present first-past-the-post system.

      197
      It could be argued that the system that operates in my party and in the other two main political parties will provide greater opportunities for candidates in terms of gender and race. When drawing up panels, attention is given to ethnic minority candidates and to women, who are not fully represented by any means under the present system. However, I have certain reservations about the system under debate, and I find it difficult to support.
      It is vital that everything be above board when drawing up a panel. There should be no question of people's internal party political opinions being taken into account or of someone being considered to be something of a rebel. Nevertheless, the suspicion will remain that those who cannot be relied upon 100 per cent. to support the party line will be excluded. That is why I believe that there is a lot to be said for the open system. If we are to use proportional representation for European elections, it would be better to choose the open rather than the closed system.
      I hope that this problem will not arise. I am talking not about the two Labour MEPs who were rightly expelled from the party but about MEPs who have been totally loyal to their party throughout their political lives and intend to remain so, but who do not necessarily agree with every dot and comma of party policy. They may dissent from time to time and may be described in the press as members of the awkward squad. I believe that we should not exclude such people in a democracy. If people perform a proper service, the fact that they might rebel occasionally should not be a cause for exclusion.
      I am not saying that that has occurred. However, the system that we are considering today involves the operation of a panel of, I hope, fair-minded people who must decide which candidates will be ranked No. 1, 2, 3 and 4. It will take a lot to persuade me that someone who falls into the category that I have described will be ranked among the first three or four candidates. For those reasons, I have reservations about the measure. I did not vote for it previously, and I shall not do so tonight.
      There will be no change in policy for next year's European elections. However, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who decide these matters and make their recommendations to the House will consider this issue carefully. It is right and proper that the Conservative view should be taken into account, but I am sure that Conservative Members will not misunderstand me when I say that I hope that, when it comes to deciding this matter for future European elections, my right hon. and hon. Friends will take my party's reservations seriously as well. I hope that I speak as a totally loyal member of my party, although I disagree with it on certain occasions—such as tonight. I must confess that I have wondered where I would be ranked if I were to stand for pre-selection as a Member of the European Parliament.
      I believe that this has been a good debate, although I have missed a great deal of it. [Interruption.] The Assistant Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), appears to disagree. What I have heard of the debate has been very useful—I hope that I have qualified my remarks to his satisfaction. I heard a great deal of the Home Secretary's speech, and I have been in the Chamber for the past 10 or 15 minutes.
      198
      It is undoubtedly true that the debate has raised matters that are very important to the democratic process. It is right and proper that we should debate those issues and, although I am a critic of the Lords, I believe that, on this occasion, they were right to reconsider the measure and return it to this place.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Swayne: The principal difficulty faced by the European Parliament is its perceived lack of democratic legitimacy, in that the people do not consider it their Parliament. We make that problem considerably worse when we rob that Parliament of what little legitimacy it has by introducing a system that ensures that candidates may be elected despite the fact that they have not received the specific votes of any electors. The amendment has certain weaknesses, but at least it addresses that difficulty.
      The Secretary of State painted a scenario that I found persuasive in many respects. He said that, under the amendment, certain candidates could be elected having secured fewer votes than other candidates who were not elected. However, I suspect that the Government's principal difficulty is precisely that which I raised in earlier intervention—the overall numbers for each party will not change as a consequence of the amendment. It will merely change the candidates who would be elected rather than the number of candidates elected from either side. In that respect, the amendment addresses one of the elements of the current system that many people have found so distasteful.
      We are effectively talking about a dialogue within the parties. Labour Members have complained that the selection system is not transparent. I also have some reservations about the system of candidate selection on my side. I had great difficulty persuading 3,500 members of my party to travel from the New Forest to docklands to spend a sunny day selecting candidates. I acknowledge that I failed in that task, as I managed to fill only one coach. However, at least we made the effort—although the same cannot be said for the Labour party.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The terms of the amendments are very tight, and the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is straying from them.
      Mr. Swayne: The point that I am attempting to make is that the amendment offers the prospect of a primary election to members or supporters of a political party. That is vital. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who said that the amendment has come too late because the parties have made their selections and stitched it up.
      Mr. Bermingham: Earlier in the debate, I said that the problem with the Lords amendment is that it is an either/or amendment. If we were to opt for the open system, as the Lords suggest, we would disadvantage the major party candidates and the independent candidates. In the case of a vote for the party candidate named, the party still records a vote. However, a vote for the independent candidate is a vote only for that candidate, and no vote is recorded for a party. Therefore, the position of the independent candidate would upset the fairness that exists between all members of the same party within the list system.
      Mr. Swayne: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and it is a persuasive one. However, our experience in this

      199
      country is that there are often not many independent candidates in these contests. That does not alter the principle of the matter but, given the number of options available to us, the open list is perhaps the best, and certainly the best available this evening.
      As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole said that it was too late to open up this issue. The advantage of the amendment is that it draws attention to what people clearly perceive as a stitch-up by political parties. That is important. Although some may find this hard to believe, there is great diversity of view within political parties, and that should be aired in the election.
      It may be extraordinary, but there are members of the Liberal Democrat party who are not content with the pace of European integration and voted against the Maastricht treaty. That is not reflected in the party line of the Liberal Democrat party. There is a broad spectrum of view within the Conservative party and the Labour party. It is appropriate that that spectrum should be represented to the voters by names on the ballot paper so that they can select the candidate who represents their views most appropriately.
      It is all very well for the Home Secretary to say, "Ah, but the people don't know. They have no idea who the candidate is, let alone what he stands for." I accept that that may be true, but there are ways of remedying that, and that is the purpose, to a large extent, of political parties. Their purpose is to register their voters and turn out their supporters. That has historically been the position. However, the effect of the substantive Bill rather than that of the amendment is that that will never happen. That is defeatism. It is turning away from the justified and proper effort to educate our people about the great issues of the day. It is for that reason, among others, that I support the amendment.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: I shall speak briefly. Earlier in the debate I had not intended to speak; however, having listened to it, it seemed to me that there were one or two points additional to those made in the debate in another place on this subject.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has spoken, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) had some sympathy with his argument about not suddenly giving way to the Trojan horse of proportional representation. We are setting out to debate the different system that the other place has brought forward—a different system of PR—and not whether there should be a PR system as such. On that basis, those in another place were appropriately engaging in their role as a revising Chamber, and did so in an estimable fashion. It is incumbent upon us to consider the merits of the argument that they presented, not to return to an earlier debate of principle about whether there should be a PR or first-past-the-post system for elections to the European Parliament.
      Within those confines I think that the other place, by means of the amendment, has shown that it is a useful adjunct to this debate in the sense of being free of control of government and has highlighted that it is free of control of party. At the heart of the amendment is a diminution of the power of party systems over the choice of candidate and who is to go forward to the European Parliament.
      It may be at the margin but I suspect that it will be a significant margin, of difference if those who are put forward for the European Union parliamentary elections
      200
      are to be aware that their own appeal to the electorate will be significant in determining the overall result for their party and potentially the result for themselves as compared with other candidates.
      Mr. Christopher Gill: I am obviously reluctant to intrude on the grief of the Labour party, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. In the west midlands—the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is a west midlands Member—the person who is at the top of the Labour party list is someone who we have never heard of in the area, unless we happen to be addicts of the soap opera "EastEnders."
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long. The amendment refers to the open list and the closed list and not to candidates.
      Mr. Lansley: I think that my hon. Friend makes a relevant point in the sense that we might find under an open list system that a candidate who heads a list—for example, the Labour party's list in the west midlands—is the sort of candidate who might lose votes by comparison with others. It will become obvious by virtue of an open list system that that is the sort of candidate who is not supported.
      The argument was presented in the debate in another place that the Labour party might be helped out of a certain difficulty in Wales over its candidate selection by the open list system. I suspect, although I am not privy to all the internal details of the Labour party's machinations—I rely upon the debate in another place—that a closed list system suits the Labour party in many respects. It has suited the Labour party in its ability to control the selection of candidates. I think that it suits it in the ranking of those candidates in the same way. From that point of view, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) has usefully assisted my argument.
      Mr. John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend ask this question of himself? If the Labour party is so keen on focus groups to tell the Government how they should run their policy, would not this system be a convenient sort of focus group so that they could see by the candidates who did best; the sort of policies and attitudes—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment is far too narrow to enable us to get into these matters.
      Mr. Lansley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) takes me on to my next point. My first point was that the amendment creates a greater sense of accountability to electors rather than to party. As it happens—my right hon. Friend no doubt knew this and led me helpfully on to the point—the Labour Government went down the path of consulting focus groups on whether an open or closed list would be desirable. They found that the public took a negative view of a closed list and preferred an open list system.
      In another place the Minister responding for the Government said, "Ah, but there is a significant difference in the response that you get to this question if you explain the issues and the respective systems to the voters."

      201
      That may be true, but it will not change the result finally. I suspect—here is the key point—that the public will not go into the polling booths on 10 June next year having examined the system of election minutely. They will go into the polling booths either dimly aware or not aware at all of the electoral system that is to be used, and they will be presented with a closed list system.
      To me, and I imagine to many in the House, the list system is an alien one in the sense that voters repeatedly ask, "May I see who the candidate is?" I know that that is true for literature, for canvassing and for elections generally. Voters wish to know who the candidate is. They may be able to cross the bridge of the idea that they are being offered several different candidates, each of whom is related to the same party. However, to be divorced wholly, in effect, from the ability to choose a candidate is a very undesirable situation at which to arrive.
      I wish to make two further points arising from the debate. First, I listened with care to the arguments presented about the perverse potential result that might arise, where under the proposed system referred to in the Lords amendment someone is not elected who had a greater number of express preference votes—personal votes—than someone who was elected. However, I think that the Government mislead themselves if they think that that is the key reason for resisting the amendment. It happens to be a transparent perversity that might occur under an open list system. Under a closed list system, many candidates might be elected who would be much less preferred by the electorate than those who are not elected.
      The simple fact is that the closed list system denies us that knowledge. It denies us the ability to determine the personal preferences of the electorate when faced with the candidates. It denies that choice.
      The Home Secretary was at pains to tell us that in Blackburn, with the parliamentary system that is employed for elections to this place, if someone wishes to vote for the Labour party he has to vote for the Home Secretary. That is true, but what the Home Secretary did not refer to—I wonder why he did not take this opportunity to think about it—is that there may be people in Blackburn who wish to vote for the Home Secretary without thinking that it was their preference to vote for the Labour party. That is the point. In the European elections, people may be swayed by the character of the candidate more than they are swayed by that candidate's party allegiance. It is important that we give vent for that. Voters demand it, the other place was right to ask for it, and I hope that the House will support it.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. James Clappison: This has been an interesting and even-tempered debate, in which there has been a wide measure of agreement across the House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) that the other place has done the House and the country a signal service in passing the amendments. It has fulfilled its constitutional function as an adjunct of this place and has given us an opportunity to think again about voter choice and the difference between open and closed lists. For all the complexity that
      202
      has arisen in certain quarters, the issue is simply whether voters have a choice about individual party candidates. The other place has given us a useful opportunity to explore why voters should be given such a choice.
      I say that there has been a wide measure of agreement across the House on this because, apart from the Home Secretary's noble attempt to explain the d'Hondt system and all the rest—his contribution was perhaps not one of the simplest that he has made to the House—few voices have been raised on either side of the House in favour of the closed list system. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made it clear that he did not like either system. He is a well-known champion of the first-past-the-post system, and he gave the House a good account of his views on that.
      The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made it clear that he was opposed to the closed list system. On that basis, he made an honourable contribution. He said that, even if everything was above board and there was no question of any MEP's political opinions being taken into account or held against him in the selection process, an open list system would still be better, because it would be obvious that that was not happening. That was a fair point to make. Certainly in the case of the Labour party, whether any MEP's political opinions have been taken into account in the selection process has not been entirely self-evident in what has happened.
      The strongest support for the Government came from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Not for the first time, I am a little perplexed by the Liberal Democrats' attitude on this. When the matter came before the House on 12 March on Report, the hon. Gentleman argued in favour of the open list system, and said that it would maximise voter choice. That was the first time that the matter came back to the House after the Home Secretary had been considering it. The Liberal Democrats then voted with the Government in favour of closed lists.
      Mr. Allan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Clappison: I shall give way in a moment.
      Today, the hon. Gentleman said that it is now far too late for any changes to be made and that they should have been made earlie, but on 12 March, he said:
      "We hope that the Home Secretary and his team will return to the issue as the Bill proceeds through Parliament, give further consideration to the objective of maximising voter choice and, having listened to the arguments so eloquently made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, produce an open list system that will at least enact the spirit of our amendments, if they cannot accept them today."—[Official Report, 12 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 777.]
      The Liberal Democrats have been given such an opportunity today, but now they say it is too late, despite having argued for more time earlier. I give way to the hon. Gentleman to explain briefly all those contradictions.
      Mr. Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for quoting my words back at me. As the hon. Gentleman will discover if he looks at the record, between March and June this year we consistently argued the case for open lists, culminating in a vote in June in the other place in which my colleagues voted for that, and lost the vote by 15 votes with no support from the hon. Gentleman's

      203
      noble Friends. At that point we decided that the argument had been lost, and that the important thing was to get the Bill through.
      Mr. Clappison: That sounds like a good each-way bet.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made a highly principled speech which reflected his devotion to the first-past-the-post system, the case for which he put robustly.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made an excellent speech with the advantage and experience of being an ex-MEP. He was firm that we were wrong to choose a closed list system. As he said, the Government seem determined to choose a system which maximises MEPs' anonymity. Surely, now that it is even more difficult for MEPs to make themselves known to their electorate and to form the sort of relationship with the elector which we would all want to see, because the constituencies are even bigger than they used to be having become part of these large regions, it is more important than ever that MEPs be given an opportunity to establish an individual relationship with groups within the electorate and, if possible, with individual electors. My right hon. Friend struck the right note when he said that we should be able to trust the people, and that people should be given a choice. The Government are denying people that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made another excellent speech. He said that this is not a good Bill and that this issue goes to its heart.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who also speaks with experience of the European Parliament, had serious concerns about the system's effect on turnout. As she rightly said, this is the first time in the experience of the British electorate that an elector will go into the polling booth and have to vote for a party or slate, not for an individual. That is alien to our political traditions. The House will also have noted my hon. Friend's comments about the difficulties which returning officers may face as a result of the system chosen by the Government.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) made the important point, to which I shall return, that the system involves a concentration of power in party headquarters, which is profoundly unhealthy. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) made the important point that the system is not in the interests of voter choice.
      Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire will have struck a note with many when he said that when voters go into the polling booth they want to know who a candidate is. I am sure that many hon. Members will have responded warmly to that sentiment.
      The Home Secretary has done his best to sell the closed list system, but he has faced an impossible task. He has learnt this afternoon that there is no love on either side of the House for the closed list system. No organisation or commentator of any independence generally has had a good word to say about the closed list system. The right hon. Gentleman even set up a focus group to find some support for that system. It did not like it, either. The right hon. Gentleman tried to find some encouragement in his analysis of the Belgian electoral system. He put the paper about the Belgian electoral system in the House of
      204
      Commons Library, but for all the good that that did, the Home Secretary might as well have performed his party game of trying to name 10 famous Belgians. We did at least discover today that Mr. d'Hondt' s name means "dog" in Flemish.
      As the Government's task has become more desperate, their arguments have become even more bogus. Very much at the last hour, the Government have produced a new argument—at least, one that has not been made too often before—that the system is being introduced for the benefit of women and ethnic minorities. That is an interesting proposition in view of the list which has been produced by the closed list system in my area in the eastern region.
      Of the first five candidates on the list selected by the Labour party machine for that region—order is all-important—only one was a woman, although the bottom three candidates were all women. To the best of my knowledge, no one on the list was from an ethnic minority. At an open meeting on a wet afternoon in Newmarket, the Conservatives managed to produce at least one member of an ethnic minority—Mr. Bashir Khanbai—who is No. 3 on the list. He is an excellent candidate who stands every chance of being elected.
      Mr. Ruffley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the noble Lord Evans of Parkside observed in the other place that, under the closed list system, 13 women and one black candidate are likely to be elected next year, compared with 13 women and one black person under the existing system? Thus there is no net gain and, even on its own terms, the closed list system fails.
      Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend has obviously been taking a close interest in this matter. His knowledge is greater than mine. I cannot speak for the generality of his argument, but I am sure that he is correct. I know from what we heard in the House earlier this afternoon that the system has at least produced an English MEP candidate at the top of the list in Wales. I do not know whether he counts as an ethnic minority, but it seems to have ruffled a few feathers.
      The proposed system is bad. It is instructive that, given the Labour party's commitment to changing how we elect our MEPs, of all the systems that it could have chosen, it has chosen one that clearly emphasises central party control. We would have preferred retention of the first-past-the-post system, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made a robust case.
      As the Home Secretary accepts, a number of other countries in Europe have various open list systems, which were all rejected in favour of a closed list system. Although he rightly says that some countries in Europe have closed list systems, so ours is not unique, his remarks must be qualified because, of all the countries in Europe with closed list systems—they are apparently in the minority—we will be the only country to operate a closed list system at a regional rather than a national level.
      That is another characteristic of the Government's system that maximises central party control. It creates a double whammy for central party control, because voters will have no say about individual candidates, as they do in an open list system. Furthermore, it is difficult for smaller parties to be formed to contest elections nationally, because they have the disadvantage of having to operate at a regional level.

      205
      As many commentators, including the constitution unit, have noted, a closed list system at regional level maximises central party control. That gives us a glimpse of new Labour's real constitutional priorities and instincts. It is very much a new Labour system. If ever a system was rife for cronyism, this is it, with central party control and cronyism being exalted at all levels.
      We think that the proposed system is bad and that one based on first past the post would have been much better. However, it is fair that we should debate open as opposed to closed list systems. All the points made by Opposition Members about voter choice have been well made. The proposed system is anathema to our constitutional system, and alien to our political traditions. It will be deeply regretted by many members of the electorate when they discover that they can no longer choose an individual candidate of a party and that everything is handed down to them by central party bosses who think that they know best. That is wrong.
      The Lords were right to raise this issue and give us another chance to discuss whether voters should have a choice or whether that choice should be taken away by new Labour and its apparatchiks.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I concur with the opening remark of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison—that this has been a good debate. It has been interesting, and hon. Members have made important points well. I congratulate all those who have participated.
      The hon. Gentleman criticised the regional list system proposed by my party in Wales, on the grounds that an Englishman is at the top of the list. I find that criticism strange coming from a party which, when in government, could not even produce a Secretary of State for Wales who was not English.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I would move on from that point, if I were you.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Howarth: I might just say that, so successful was Conservative stewardship of Wales under an English Secretary of State that it no longer has a single parliamentary seat there, so the hon. Member for Hertsmere need not lecture us on who is fit to govern and represent Wales.
      The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made a couple of interesting points.
      Mr. Ruffley: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howarth: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a minute. I wish first to refer to the points made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, who said that the House of Lords had done us a service in passing the amendment. Some of his right hon. and hon. Friends may share that view, but to portray the House of Lords as a defender of democracy is unlikely, particularly as 50 of those who supported the amendment were hereditary peers. It is a bizarre spectacle to set up hereditary peers
      206
      as heroes for supporting such a measure, which the hon. Gentleman thinks brings greater democracy, especially as the amendment was passed by a majority of only 25 votes. That casts doubt over the role of hereditary peers
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made an interesting speech, summing up the difficulty of those who might prefer a different system. The way in which the amendment has come from the House of Lords does not leave much choice. He rightly cast doubt on the motives of many of those who voted in the other place. We do not know exactly what considerations went through their minds, but the hon. Gentleman made a valid point. I welcome the fact that, in the circumstances, he feels it appropriate to support us in the Lobby tonight.
      The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) quoted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who said earlier that it is important that any electoral system should be appropriate to the body being elected. He went on to disagree with my right hon. Friend about the appropriateness of the proposed system. In a characteristically thoughtful speech, he said that he disliked the extent to which party labels would be the foremost consideration in the system that we have chosen, which we would call a "simple list" or "closed list" system.
      It is incumbent on all those who represent a political party to make this simple point: representing a political party has a meaning. By identifying ourselves with a political party, we convey a particular set of values and policies, and we associate ourselves with those values. It is important that anybody who gets his or her name on to a party list reflects the values and policies that attach to that party. In that sense, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon should examine whether it is important that a party label has that meaning, and that there is an endorsement from that party for any particular candidate.
      Mr. Curry:Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howarth: In a moment; I want to make an important point for any party about a problem that his party has and mine had in the past.
      When it becomes unclear to the electorate precisely what a political party represents, that party gets into difficulty with the electorate. I say, quite openly, that my party got into difficulties with the electorate in the early 1980s, when it was not entirely clear what it represented. The same applied at the previous general election—in equal, if not greater, measure—for the right hon. Gentleman's party, because it was not entirely clear what it stood for, what its values were and what policies it represented.
      Political parties have a duty, not only to themselves but to the electorate, to protect what they stand for. A list system along the lines that we propose is one way in which we can do that.
      Mr. Curry: I do not dissent from what the Minister says about our being elected with party labels, but he knows that a significant number of his party's MEPs, who presumably shared the values that he is talking about, are being replaced. A committee is putting forward a different set of people, presumably with the same values. That happened to some extent in my party, but at least it was

      207
      done by all the members. Does he not think that that will give a problem to the electorate, who will wonder why a committee has apparently removed one set of people to replace them with another? The electorate will not be given the choice.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are going wide of the Lords amendments. We are discussing a closed list or an open list.
      Mr. Howarth: I took part in my party's selection procedure as a member. Members were consulted, and the system took their views into account, but, because the list was regional, my party had a particular right to say that being on that list must mean something in policy terms.
      The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) raised a particular point about the different systems that apply in different parts of Europe. Let me confirm what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told her in a letter: Germany, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain all sign up to a system similar to the one that we propose. Those who are covered by that system form a majority of voters in Europe, and we are adding Britain to that system. The hon. Lady was correct to say that nine European countries have open list systems.
      The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who was about to leave the Chamber, but has come back again, let the cat out of the bag about the difficulty that Conservative Members have. They want first past the post under all circumstances, no matter how inappropriate it is to the body that is being elected. We have had a debate—the hon. Gentleman was quite open about this—predicated on the belief, which was unstated in many cases, that Conservative Members would prefer ordinary constituencies, such as those that we have used in the past, with a first-past-the-post system. We do not believe that that is the most appropriate way of electing the European Parliament.
      Mr. Cash: Does the Minister accept that a Stalinist approach has been adopted to get rid of Ken Coates and others? [Interruption.] Does he also accept that that shows that the Labour party and the Government intend—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is far too wide of the amendment. I also appeal to hon. Members: the House must come to order. There are far too many conversations around the Chamber.
      Mr. Howarth: I will not be tempted along that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, given your strictures, and because I have already answered the point. The hon. Member for Stone made an honest case, but not one that I agree with.
      My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) raised a couple of points: his concern about turnout in the European elections as a result of whatever system we adopt, and Sunday voting. I shall deal with those in turn.
      I share the concern about turnout, not only in the European election, but in general. I chair a working party, on which the Conservative party, the Liberal party and many experts sit, which is considering electoral arrangements. They are one of the issues that we want to address, and they are a problem in Europe, although that problem does not relate exclusively to Europe.
      208
      We all have a duty. I was involved in the launch of the "Get the Vote Out" campaign last week, and it will be helping. It is incumbent on political parties also to try to get the vote out at the election, whether they like the system or not. I hope that we all play our part.
      It would be unwise to use Sunday voting on this occasion. We will be using a proportional regional list system for the first time, which is a major change. That may affect turnout, and moving to Sunday voting may do the same. We would not know the weight of one factor against the other in that equation, so I would rather have one change at a time so that we can measure it.
      Mr. Bermingham: Will my hon. Friend give me a straight answer to a straight question: does he think that the new system will increase or decrease the turnout next June?
      Mr. Howarth: I do not know. That will depend on how hard we all campaign, and how other bodies support us in that campaigning to make sure that people believe that it is important that they go out and vote.
      As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, no electoral system is perfect. The most important thing is that we choose the one that produces the best and fairest result, which this one will. It is important that we choose a system that is appropriate to the body that is being elected. This one is appropriate, and I urge my hon. Friends to support it. There is no perfect solution, but this is the best available, and, in the long run, it will prove itself at the elections.
      Question put, That this House does disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 338, Noes 131.

      Division No. 367]

      [6.56 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Browne, Desmond

      Ainger, Nick

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Burden, Richard

      Alexander, Douglas

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Allan, Richard

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Caborn, Richard

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Austin, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Banks, Tony

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Barron, Kevin

      Caplin, Ivor

      Bayley, Hugh

      Casale, Roger

      Beard, Nigel

      Caton, Martin

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Chaytor, David

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Chidgey, David

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Benton, Joe

      Clapham, Michael

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Berry, Roger

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Best, Harold

      Betts, Clive

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Borrow, David

      Clelland, David

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cohen, Harry

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Coleman, Iain

      209

      Colman, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hoey, Kate

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hood, Jimmy

      Corbett, Robin

      Hope, Phil

      Cotter, Brian

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cranston, Ross

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Crausby, David

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cummings, John

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hurst, Alan

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hutton, John

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna(Perth)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Illsley, Eric

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Darvill, Keith

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

      Davidson, Ian

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Doran, Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dowd, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Edwards, Huw

      Kidney, David

      Efford, Clive

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fatchett, Derek

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Laxton, Bob

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Lepper, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Levitt, Tom

      Flint, Caroline

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Follett, Barbara

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Livsey, Richard

      Foulkes, George

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Galloway, George

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gapes, Mike

      Lock, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      McAllion, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McCabe, Steve

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Goggins, Paul

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Macdonald, Calum

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gunnell, John

      McLeish, Henry

      Hain, Peter

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hanson, David

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McWalter, Tony

      Healey, John

      McWilliam, John

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marek, Dr John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Martlew, Eric

      Hill, Keith

      Maxton, John

      210

      Meale, Alan

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Merron, Gillian

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Michael, Alun

      Singh, Marsha

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Milburn, Alan

      Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Miller, Andrew

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Snape, Peter

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Soley, Clive

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Spellar, John

      Mountford, Kali

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mullin, Chris

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stevenson, George

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Norris, Dan

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Oaten, Mark

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Stringer, Graham

      Olner, Bill

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Neill, Martin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Öpik, Lembit

      Swinney, John

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pendry, Tom

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pike, Peter L

      Timms, Stephen

      Plaskitt, James

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pollard, Kerry

      Todd, Mark

      Pope, Greg

      Touhig, Don

      Pound, Stephen

      Trickett, Jon

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Vaz, Keith

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Purchase, Ken

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wareing, Robert N

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Watts, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Webb, Steve

      Rapson, Syd

      White, Brian

      Raynsford, Nick

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

      Rogers, Allan

      Rooker, Jeff

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Rooney, Terry

      Willis, Phil

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wilson, Brian

      Roy, Frank

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Wood, Mike

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Woolas, Phil

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Worthington, Tony

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wray, James

      Salter, Martin

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wyatt, Derek

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. David Jamieson.

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Body, Sir Richard

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Brady, Graham

      Beggs, Roy

      Brazier, Julian

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Bercow, John

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      211

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Burns, Simon

      Horam, John

      Butterfill, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Chope, Christopher

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Clappison, James

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Collins, Tim

      Colvin, Michael

      Key, Robert

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Cran, James

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Leigh, Edward

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Letwin, Oliver

      Duncan, Alan

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Lidington, David

      Evans, Nigel

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Faber, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Fabricant, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Flight, Howard

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Gale, Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Garnier, Edward

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Gibb, Nick

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gill, Christopher

      Maples, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Gray, James

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Greenway, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Grieve, Dominic

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Norman, Archie

      Hammond, Philip

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Page, Richard

      Hayes, John

      Paice, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Paterson, Owen

      212

      Pickles, Eric

      Townend, John

      Prior, David

      Trend, Michael

      Randall, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Viggers, Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Wells, Bowen

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Ruffley, David

      Whittingdale, John

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Wilkinson, John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Willetts, David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Spring, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Streeter, Gary

      Woodward, Shaun

      Swayne, Desmond

      Yeo, Tim

      Syms, Robert

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Sir David Madel and Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 disagreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. James Clappison, Mr. Mike Hall, Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Paddy Tipping and Mr. Nigel Waterson; Mr. George Howarth to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee. —[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

      Working Time
      7.13 pm
      Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you, and all Members, will have been inundated with queries from constituents asking about the working time regulations. I was amazed to discover not only that the regulations were brought into force at a time when the House was not sitting, but that apparently only an hour and a half was available for us to debate 43 clauses and two schedules of what would constitute a major Bill.
      Is there no way in which the House can protect itself and the constituents whom we have been sent here to represent by ensuring that the regulations are properly debated, and that the Government have a chance to amend any part of a measure that will otherwise cause enormous problems to all our constituents, including employers?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I am guided by the rules of the House, according to which everything is in order.
      Mr. John Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Government to spend large sums advertising the fact that rural persons—meant to be shepherds—will be affected by the measure even before it has been passed?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate.
      7.14 pm
      Mr. John Redwood: I beg to move,
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Working Time Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 1833), dated 30th July 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th July, be annulled.
      At last we have been allowed a debate on massively important regulations that will cost business £2,000 million a year, may well cost many people their jobs, and are yet another reason why business in this country will be less competitive and less successful.
      The House will know that I have declared interests in the Register of Members' Interests; but I do not speak on behalf of any narrow sectional interest tonight. I speak on behalf of all who want more jobs, more economic success, more flexibility, more opportunity and more choice. My right hon. and hon. Friends have exposed the hollowness of the new deal, and the fact that so few people have been able to take advantage of that scheme and go on to find jobs. Tonight we are debating the way in which the Government are heaping regulation on regulation, making it much more difficult for people to find jobs in the normal course of market business.
      Where is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Did he discover that he had already done his work in time for this week, and decide to absent himself? Does he not realise that Ministers are not subject to regulation of this kind, and that we expect them to come to the House and answer when they are imposing such massive costs on business and making such differences to our economy?
      Why did the Secretary of State allow no debate during the parliamentary year, up to the summer recess? We all knew that the work had to be done; we all knew that there
      214
      were contentious issues in regard to how the Brussels directive was to be implemented. We wanted a debate to ensure that it was implemented in the least intrusive and damaging way possible, but we were offered absolutely no debate.
      We then discovered that the measure had been sneaked out in the summer recess. The Government hoped to get away with it, with absolutely no debate and practically no publicity. Business had to obey all the rules from 1 October; yet business was not to be properly informed, and the public and business were not to be given the opportunity, through Her Majesty's Opposition, to express their view on how the measure could be implemented in a less damaging way.
      Mr. Gummer: Is not my right hon. Friend being a little unkind to the right hon. Gentleman who should be present—the Secretary of State? When this issue hit the headlines, the right hon. Gentleman made it his business to appear on as many television programmes, and as widely, as was possible, to explain his position to the rest of the country. Is it not odd that he has not made it his business to come here tonight? Perhaps he feels that other issues will dominate the television headlines today.
      Mr. Redwood: I am not sure what my right hon. Friend meant by that last remark, but I think it is often the case that the present Secretary of State prefers spinning to working, and perhaps tonight he is spinning away. What he should understand, however, is that this is the place that should have the news first. This is the place where he should come, so that we can cross-examine him. This is the place where he should defend and enormously complicated set of rules and regulations. This is the place where he should try to explain to us why we must have one costly and cumbersome set of regulations to tackle the issue of working time now, and why, next spring, we must have another set of equally cumbersome and complex regulations that do not mesh with the system to control the minimum wage.
      Would it not have been more sensible for the Secretary of State to put the two pieces of work together, with the aim of minimising the cost to business of record keeping and bureaucracy? Would it not have been common courtesy for him to come to the House to support his Minister of State, and to answer the questions himself? So often, the Minister of State has been left—by both the present Secretary of State and his predecessor—to answer difficult questions.
      Obviously, the former President of the Board of Trade and the new Secretary of State know that their policies do not add up. They know that they are part of the problem that faces manufacturing, which is now in a state of crisis. So they leave the poor Minister of State on his own to try to deal with all our sensible and important queries.
      Maria Eagle: Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that those who are losing their jobs in manufacturing are doing so because they have three weeks' paid annual leave and are entitled to rest breaks and decent terms and conditions?
      Mr. Redwood: I am about to argue that the reason why British business is becoming so uncompetitive and so many manufacturers are closing factories and sacking

      215
      their employees is that the Government have heaped too many costs and burdens on them; it is not one individual imposition. Of course we want decent terms and conditions of employment, but, if we take all the regulations and all the tax increases that the Government have hurled at British businesses, we get an insupportable burden, which has led many of them to close, and will lead to many more closing.
      All too often now, I read in correspondence or in newspaper reports of companies that are not merely closing here, but opening an equivalent facility in more lightly taxed and regulated countries. It is a sign that the Government have turned the UK, in less than two years, from being people's first choice for new investment locations when running a global business, to being their first choice for closure, so badly have the Government damaged the environment in which companies trade.
      Mr. David Chidgey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Redwood: I will in just one minute, when I have developed my argument a little further.
      I wonder whether the Government are aware that one job is being lost every 10 minutes. I wonder whether they realise that, on recent independent analysis, they have already, in the first two years of office, including the minimum wage next spring, pushed up the cost to business by 40 per cent. through additional regulation. Do they know that their own compliance cost assessment says that it is going to be more than £2,000 million a year to pay for working time? Does the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) realise that the extra money will come out of business, which means less investment and less employment? [Interruption.]
      We are all delighted to see that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry now realises that he should have been here all along to hear our arguments. I am sure that he did not enjoy going belatedly to his constituency to see why factories were closing there. If he stays for the rest of the debate, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends may be able to make him a little wiser about why it is that, under this Government, Britain has deteriorated so rapidly, and is now people's least preferred choice for new investment.
      On top of the £2 billion working time regulations cost, we have an estimated £2.9 billion minimum wage cost coming in this spring, yet another reason why less profit and less revenue will be left in business coffers to pay for new jobs and new investment.
      I have received evidence from those who are responsible for hiring temporary workers, a flexibility that some employees themselves like, as well as some companies. I am told that this regulation on its own imposes an 8 per cent. additional levy on the payroll cost of employing a temporary worker. Even the Secretary of State must realise that that will mean that fewer workers are employed.
      I do not like that fact of economic life. I would like to be able to tell my constituents that there are going to be even more jobs, at ever higher rates of pay, with ever additional regulatory protection. We would all like to live in that world, but the Secretary of State must get real. He is always lecturing British business about the need to be more productive and more competitive. Every 8 per cent.
      216
      additional burden on payroll means fewer people employed and less successful business operations in the United Kingdom.
      When this Government came to office, we were told that they had three priorities: education, education, education. I do not know whether the needle had stuck or they had just got lost in making the soundbite more interesting, but let me play one back to them. After 18 months in office, they have shown that their priority is not education, education, education—because they have been destroying great schools and doing a lot of damage, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have been pointing out—but regulation, regulation, regulation. It is that which will do so much damage to job prospects and opportunities in the United Kingdom.
      This Government are making it too dear to do business in Britain. They are making it too dear to make things in Britain. That is the common theme behind the tragedy at Rover, the closure of Siemens, the closure of Fujitsu, the closure of Grove Cranes—behind that long list of factory closures and job losses that we have helped to chronicle and expressed our regret over—but it was an entirely predictable result of this Government's policies of sticking up sterling, interest rates and business taxes and increasing regulation. Cost after cost has been placed on business.
      I am sure that the Secretary of State would tell us, were he to speak, that sterling is beginning to devalue, but does he not understand that the damage has been done by 12 or 15 months of very high sterling and by the persistence of extremely high interest rates—more than double the level of interest rates of our main competitors on the continent? It is this Government who have made it too dear to make things in Britain.
      Mr. Chidgey: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman in advance for interrupting the flow of his argument, but a few moments ago he said that companies were relocating to other countries, rather than into Britain. I wonder whether he could help the House by giving us some examples of the countries to which companies are relocating on the basis of labour costs, rather than staying in the UK.
      Mr. Redwood: Companies are relocating to Asian and American locations. Even within the European Union, where there are tax differences, companies are relocating. Rank Xerox, for example, has recently announced the cessation of 500 jobs in the forest of Dean. They are going to the Republic of Ireland, where there is a huge tax advantage. I have made it clear that we have to look at tax and labour costs together—that this Government have imposed many additional burdens on business here, which causes the problems.
      Mr. John Bercow: I am sure that the whole House will agree with my right hon. Friend that it is welcome news that the nomad has returned. The Secretary of State is making a half effort at listening, and is feverishly taking notes, but does my right hon. Friend not think that it would be useful if the Secretary of State felt able at the conclusion of the debate to deliver a half-competent response to it?
      Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has made his own strong point in his inimitable way.

      217
      We want to know: why is it that the Government have chosen for the minimum wage different time periods and different record keeping from the working time regulations? We want to know why the two cannot be made compatible and be brought together. We wish to have some of the complexity explained through this House to the country at large.
      Why, for example, have the Government chosen the particular formula on page 10 to calculate entitlement to leave? It would be too boring to read out the whole thing, but
      "(A x B)-C
      where
      A is the period of leave to which the worker is entitled under regulation 13(1);
      B is the proportion of the worker's leave year which expired before the termination date"—
      and so forth is not easy for someone who is running their small business, and is worried about where the next sales are coming from and how to renegotiate the overdraft against the background of this Government's difficult monetary policy. There is much complexity and lack of clarity in the proposals.
      I have had a lot of correspondence from throughout the country complaining about the opacity of the regulations and the lack of helpfulness of the ministerial team at the Department of Trade and Industry in making them clearer to business. For example, a nursing home owner wrote to me saying:
      "These regulations have been brought in with no notice to small business. The first we heard of them was when a member of staff brought in an article from the Sunday Telegraph.
      On speaking to the DTI they seemed totally confused and offered not a great deal of assistance, seeming to know virtually nothing about the subject."
      That is one of several that I could quote from people who have not recognised that this was coming because we did not have the proper parliamentary debate and the normal publicity that relates to it. When the DTI realised that it needed to do something about publicity, people found that there were not enough copies of the guide, and that the 74-page guide was not clear anyway.
      The guide warned people that it was not authoritative, and that it might even be wrong. It said that there could be court cases that undermined what the guide said, so the DTI and Secretary of State were saying to business, "Go to expensive lawyers. Ask for their advice, because our 74-page guide cannot reassure you. If you must, try to read these opaque and complex regulations."
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend seen the cartoon on the front of the regulations, which shows a British worker effectively sawing off his own job, and trying to indicate that the Government have got themselves in a mess? I wonder whether the Minister really understood what message he was conveying to people.
      Mr. Redwood: Yes, I saw that and I assumed that Ministers had neither checked the cartoon nor read the text inside, as otherwise they would have seen what an own goal it was in its apparent portrayal of the Government cutting themselves off by sawing the wrong
      218
      piece of wood on which they were precariously perched. The 74-page guide has made life more difficult, and the burden of DTI advice seems to be that people must go off to lawyers because they cannot be sure.
      What extra financial provision is to be made throughout the public services to meet the extra cost? We know that that cost will be more than £2 billion a year, and that quite a bit of it will fall on service provision through public finance. Some nursing homes, for example, will have considerable extra costs. Those who have written to me say that the social services in their local authority have had no extra money, and that, if they try to put up their charges, they will doubtless be told that social services will have to buy fewer places.
      Vulnerable people seem to be at risk unless the Government are prepared to route extra money into those social services funds, so that the same level of service can be provided and the public sector share of the £2 billion-plus cost of the regulations can be met. The Government should reassure all those people who may be at risk and tell them how much extra money will be put in to meet that cost in important public services. Over what period does the Secretary of State envisage that nursing homes, for example, will be allowed to put up their prices to cover the great additional cost and reassure all the people who need it that the care will continue to be provided?
      The situation seemed to descend into farce when I read in the newspaper the other day that the Jubilee line completion date was gravely threatened because the work force wanted extra compensation in light of the regulations, and there was a threat of industrial action. It is a crowning irony for the Secretary of State, who prides himself on being able to see the dome through to a successful conclusion, that his own regulations, which he pushed through so casually in the summer recess, hoping that no one would notice, should have caused such industrial disruption to the construction of the Jubilee line, the timely completion of which is crucial to the dome project.
      We want to know more about the exceptions. I am sure that many Labour Members would prefer the minimum of exceptions, because they believe that one can legislate for higher standards rather than working to achieve them in an enterprise economy. Why, then, are there so many exemptions? Why are all those working in
      "air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway and lake transport … sea fishing … other work at sea; or … doctors in training"
      exempted, but not others who might feel that their industry or activity warranted an exemption?
      The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I want to help the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he has forgotten that, when he was a member of the previous Government, it was negotiated with the European Commission that those sectors would be dealt with separately because of their specific needs. That is exactly what is happening, and consultation is taking place. He made the point to attack the Government, but in fact he is attacking the previous Government, of which he was a member.
      Mr. Redwood: I am not attacking the previous Government, who did not want any of these regulations, but were unable to persuade our European partners

      219
      through the courts. We would have been forced into implementing the regulations, but we would have done so in a far less damaging and costly way.
      It is for the Minister to explain why, given that he is a believer in such regulation, he is exempting all those groups. There is nothing to stop him including everyone in the regulations, if he thinks that they are such a good idea. Why are those groups, representing a substantial chunk of the economy, left out of a protection that he considers valuable? If the answer is that they need the extra flexibility to have a successful industry with good labour relations, why does that not apply to other groups? Why does he not go back to Brussels with another list of groups that need similar treatment?
      We were told that the Government would pride themselves on having a lot of influence in Brussels. I would not mind betting that they have not tried to renegotiate anything in the regulations, and that they have not returned to Brussels after the court case, as we would have done, to say that they were still not happy and wanted to negotiate something better. I do not suppose that they have expressed any interest in the subject around the ministerial table in Brussels. I take the grins on Ministers' faces as confirmation of that.
      The Secretary of State is very good at asking people to work longer hours. He asked the Conran shop to stay open longer than normal so that he could complete his shopping, and when 1 visited the Birmingham motor show on Friday, I learned that he had asked for it to open early on Wednesday so that he could get back in time for a private lunch that he thought was very important.
      It is ironic that the right hon. Gentleman, who, whether with a talking or with a silent part, has come to propose the regulations to the House, should himself have encouraged workers to break, or to get dangerously close to breaking, them for his own convenience. He is an important and influential man, but he is not yet royalty, and there must be limits to what he can expect of those in shops and motor shows.
      Will the Minister confirm that Members of Parliament are exempt? Many of us would find it difficult to carry out all our functions in a 48-hour week. I believe that there is some doubt about the position of the Speaker. That should be clarified: is there any special circumstance in which someone working loyally for the service of the House as a whole could be in a different category from those of us who, I trust, are assumed to be more independent and are exempt from the regulations?
      It is widely agreed by independent commentators, as well as by Conservative Members, that the incoming Government received a very fine economic legacy. It was a golden legacy, with low inflation; reasonable growth; reducing unemployment; a flexible work force; and living standards and real wages rising at a pace that the economy could sustain, in the context of a successful enterprise economy.
      Eighteen months on, there is growing evidence of a downturn made in Downing street, with closure after closure, job loss after job loss and problem after problem. The Minister must answer on that general issue as it applies to this debate. Will not he concede that every such regulation, reducing flexibility and imposing additional costs, makes it more difficult for the enterprise economy to work and for us to achieve the improvement in living standards and in terms and conditions that always comes when an economy is growing or flourishing?
      220
      The paradox may be that, through the regulations, more people will lose their jobs and fewer will have decent living standards and quality of employment, because the regulations are part of the process by which the golden economic legacy is being squandered.
      We have some positive recommendations, should the Minister be interested. We should like him to take away the regulations and come back with an improved version. He has to do something, as we know that he will not negotiate the cessation of the regulations from Brussels. We want him to consider whether more exemptions would be sensible, and to come up with less onerous record keeping. Much of the cost will be in record keeping, not improving people's jobs, but creating a lot of bureaucracy. That is simply throwing money down the drain. The Minister should reconsider the record keeping, in the light of the equally onerous record keeping that he is soon to demand for the minimum wage.
      We should like the Minister to offer, even at this late stage, a better guide for businesses: 74 pages offering no guarantees is not satisfactory, and the language of the regulations is not clear for the normal entrepreneur running a small or medium business, who has better things to do than wade through this kind of stuff in the afternoon or late at night.
      We definitely want clarification from the Secretary of State and his colleagues about how the public sector is to handle the large share of the cost that will fall on public services. We desperately need to know that those in nursing homes, for example, will continue to get their care, and that adequate extra money will be provided to pay for the costs that will fall on that sector.
      Above all—from a Government who say that they are about creating jobs and opportunities—we want a proper statement of the impact of all that cost on jobs. Why is there no impact statement on jobs? The Department must have done work on that matter, and knows that every extra £ billion of business cost results in less investment and fewer jobs. Will Ministers spell it out for us today, and honestly tell the nation what the cost will be? How many more factories? How many more times will I turn on my television or Ceefax in the morning and have to learn of another factory closing because the costs are simply too great?
      The Government are wrecking the business bottom line. Wrecking the business bottom line means that there will be less business in Britain. Businesses will go elsewhere; they will shut down here. Will Ministers listen before it is too late, and before the Secretary of State is known and remembered only as the Minister for recession?
      7.40 pm
      Mr. Alan Johnson: I speak in this debate more in sorrow than in anger, and as one who argued for many years in the trade union movement—it was not always an easy argument—that the movement should undergo a sea change by moving away from legal immunities and always depending on free collective bargaining, and towards positive rights and minimum standards. I argued that, if we did that in the United Kingdom, since no mainstream political party could oppose basic minimum standards, we would prevent exploitation and safeguard the rights of the most vulnerable. I argued that no political party entering government would ever dare to interfere with those minimum standards.

      221
      Although it is arguable whether the Conservatives are any longer a mainstream party, it is sad that a once great political institution should be demeaning itself by opposing such modest steps to prevent the exploitation of British workers. Conservative Members' opposition to such provisions is sad and makes them unique, even among the centre right parties on the continent.
      Conservative Members have had a difficult time with the issue of working time regulations. First, they humiliated the United Kingdom by trying to evade the law and losing, hands down, at the European Court of Justice. Ultimately, they humiliated themselves. All they achieved—belonging, as they do, to the party of Church and the family—was the removal from the regulations the principle that Sunday should be the statutory day off.
      Conservative Members then went to the country in a general election. I have a document—it is not easy to find a copy—published before the general election that is known as the Conservative party manifesto. It is perhaps known also as the shortest suicide note in history. It states:
      "We will insist at the Intergovernmental Conference in Amsterdam that our opt-out is honoured and that Britain is exempted from the Working Time Directive".
      There were not many specific pledges in that document, but that was one, and it was emphatically rejected at the general election by the British people.
      Conservative Members deluded themselves into believing that they could continue to fool the British work force by making the essentially unpatriotic argument that it would somehow be good for people working in British factories for our country to be the exploitation capital of Europe. The British people emphatically rejected that attempt.
      After the views of the Conservative party were rejected on 1 May 1997, the Labour Government went to Amsterdam and re-engaged in the process of civilised and mature politics. I honestly thought that, after their devastating defeat, Conservative Members would listen and learn from their experience. I really thought that they would realise that there had been a change not only in the United Kingdom but in the thinking of the trade union movement on how we should proceed in ensuring basic minimum standards at work. Conservative Members' motion on today's Order Paper shows that they are simply wallowing in their humiliation.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Johnson: No; there is no time to give way. It is a short debate, and other hon. Members wish to speak.
      Once again, Conservative Members are spouting their basically unpatriotic argument. They say that the issue is one of burdens on business. An example of a burden on business was the passage of legislation insisting that, every three years, employers had to approach workers to discover whether they were still happy to pay their union dues out of their pay each week, through check-off. Moreover, every time union dues were increased, the legislation required employers to write to every employee to discover whether he or she was still keen to continue doing what he or she had done for years. That is a burden on business.
      222
      On the principle of not imposing burdens on business, Conservative Members oppose passing regulations that will ensure basic, decent workplace standards. The regulations will not affect the practices of the vast majority of good British employers, but will help to tackle exploitation.
      I have been a member of the Trade and Industry Committee for only a short time. However, shortly after the general election, because of Conservative Members' arguments that companies would make inward investment in the United Kingdom only if we opted out of the social chapter, we conducted an investigation into inward investment, and quizzed everyone to whom we spoke on the matter. As the evidence shows, the issue of the United Kingdom opting out of the social chapter did not crop up once among the firms to which we spoke about inward investment. The issues that they cared about most were training, skills and local facilities. Not once was the social chapter raised.
      The Opposition have always opposed decent standards—whether in health and safety, equal opportunities or maternity rights—on the basis that providing decent standards would be a burden on British business. I think that British business understands that we now have a Government who subscribe to principles that are very different from those of the Opposition. I am happy for that difference in principles to define the difference between the Government and the Opposition. I hope that the House will reject the Conservative motion and pass the regulations.
      7.46 pm
      Mr. Christopher Gill: This is a very short debate, and I shall therefore make my speech a very brief one. The hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) said that he was speaking in this debate more in sorrow than in anger. I speak in the debate in anger. I am very angry, on three counts—not least of which is the fact that the Government did not give the House an opportunity to debate the regulations before they came into effect on 1 October 1998.
      Before I tabled early-day motion 1637, on 30 July 1998—effectively the last full working day before the summer recess—I checked with the Table Office to obtain a copy of the regulations. By mid-afternoon on that day, the regulations were still not available, although there was a hint that they might be available the following Friday morning. Such a situation is simply unacceptable. We are dealing not with run-of-the-mill regulations but with a very significant and expensive measure indeed.
      The Government have acted disgracefully on the regulations. They could have made parliamentary time available to debate the regulations if they had wanted to. They failed to do so, and have thus shown their contempt for Parliament.
      The second point that makes me angry is the fact that the Government, because of their handling of the regulations, have gratuitously imposed a huge cost burden on British industry. The hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle has his own perspective on the matter, but that perspective is not shared by employers who are trying to run businesses in an increasingly competitive world.
      I remind the hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle of the new costs that will be imposed on British business. In the first full year, the costs will be £1.9 billion. In 12

      223
      months' time—because of the additional week's paid leave coming into effect—that £1.9 billion will increase to £2.3 billion. But the costs will not end there. According to the cost compliance statement, at paragraph 3.26 of annexe E3 of the consultation paper:
      "It is assumed that the total cost of enforcing the Working Time Regulations could fall in the range £63.5-£6.3 million."
      That cost deals only with enforcing the regulations.
      Paragraph 3.27 states:
      "It is assumed that the enforcement of the Working Time Regulations could increase the industrial tribunals workload by an additional 3,000–6,000 industrial tribunal cases per annum."
      It goes on:
      "It is estimated that the enforcement of the Working Time Regulations could increase the workload of the HSE"—
      the Health and Safety Executive—
      "by between 10 and 25 per cent."
      The Government must be aware of all those factors. They must be aware of the huge burden of cost and bureaucracy that they are imposing on employers. Conservatives are certainly acutely conscious of those things, and we are determined to do all that we can to help employers remain competitive by opposing the regulations.
      The effect of the regulations on this nation's competitive edge will be devastating. It is all very well for the Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, to tell British industry to sharpen up its act and improve productivity. I can tell him that what British industry needs is help, not hectoring.
      I shall give just one example from the real world of trade and industry to illustrate my point. The sawmilling industry is facing a grave crisis. In England and Wales, 22 mills have between them shed 485 workers. In the harvesting industry, approximately—
      Mr. Alan Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) has registered shareholdings in a company but has not declared that fact in the debate; surely he should have done so at the beginning of his contribution.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Gill: My interests are well known, and they are of course declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
      My point is that 22 companies in the timber industry in England and Wales have shed 485 jobs, which is leading to a further 100 job losses in the harvesting industry. The hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) should know that that is because we are competing with countries that can provide us with timber very much more competitively. In Latvia, which is providing so much of that timber and putting British sawmills out of business,
      224
      wages are not £3.60 an hour, or the minimum wage, but £2 a day. What are we doing in the face of that competition?
      Maria Eagle:Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gill: No, I want to leave time for other hon. Members to speak, because it is important that we hear your arguments and I intend to complete my arguments before I sit down.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman expect me to give my argument?
      Mr. Gill: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, as I said at the outset, I am very angry about what is happening.
      I am about to give the third reason for my anger, but I shall first give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend said that there were three reasons for his anger, and he was just about to tell us the third. I suggest that there is a fourth reason, which is the lack of clarity in the regulations themselves, especially with regard to the definition of working time and whether it extends to long travel periods. If people travel to the far east on their employers' business, does that fall within the definition of working time? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is simply not clear from the documentation?
      Mr. Gill: My right hon. and learned Friend draws attention to a very important point. Industry feels that all these matters should have been clarified in advance of the publication of the regulations. The point that I was making, with which I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend agrees, was that the regulations were not available before they were implemented. As he knows, they came into effect on 1 October, but only now do we have an opportunity to debate how they might affect our industries. The Government's view is that cases such as that which my right hon. and learned Friend instanced will have to be tested in the courts.
      The third reason why I am angry is that the Government went to Amsterdam and simply caved in over the regulations. Before the election, the Conservative Government had challenged the legal base of the working time directive in the European Court of Justice, arguing that it was not a genuine health and safety measure. The Court ruled against the United Kingdom on 12 November 1996. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) then sought a reversal of that decision at the intergovernmental conference that led up to Amsterdam, and threatened not to sign the treaty unless that was agreed. That is an example of the Conservative Government trying to get the best possible deal out of the European Union. What have this Government done? As soon as they were elected, they went to Amsterdam, caved in and accepted the regulations in toto.
      I promised to be brief, so I conclude by saying—to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) in particular—that we need answers to three questions. Why did not the Government provide an

      225
      opportunity for Parliament to debate the measures before they were put into effect? Does he not understand the devastating effect of placing a huge burden of overhead costs on British industry? Finally, why did the Government go belly up? Why did they cave in in Europe instead of getting a quid pro quo for their acquiescence to the regulations before us?
      7.55 pm
      Maria Eagle: I am glad to have the opportunity that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) would not give me to respond to what he said. He cited the example of the timber industry in Latvia—I do not know whether he is involved in that industry—to show that our competitors are paying workers in the saw mills as little as £2 a day. Is he suggesting that the only way that industry in this country can compete is by paying such wages? That is what he seems to be suggesting.
      Mr. Gill: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that that is not what I was suggesting. I was telling the House, especially Labour Members, that, if the Government continue to load British industry with overhead costs that are avoidable, they will make British business uncompetitive. My concern, although it might not be the hon. Lady's, is that that will put British people out of work.
      Maria Eagle: I am grateful for that clarification, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the logic of his own argument. If employers in this country are paying massive wages, as he seemed to suggest, and if our competitors are paying their workers only £ a day, it does not matter what other burdens businesses endure. The Opposition's argument is that we should be competing on the basis of the lowest possible wages and the worst possible conditions.
      I congratulate the Government on implementing the working time directive. We are talking about decent minimum standards at work. We are not talking about giving people 10 or 12 weeks' holiday but about giving them three weeks' paid leave. That is not an excessive amount of leave to expect in a working year. We are talking about rest breaks that guarantee 20 minutes' rest, not one or two hours, if people work more than six hours. We are talking about the right not to work more than 48 hours a week unless one agrees to do so. We are also talking about people having the right to one day off a week.
      Those provisions are not excessive, and I have not met one business man in my constituency—I talk to many regularly—who thinks that they are. It is clear from the regulations that there are derogations, and opportunities for people who wish to work longer hours to agree to do so. However, we are talking about the basic minimum standards at work which people should expect in a civilised society.
      The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) cited the example of a nursing home. Does he not think that care workers will be ground down by their job if they do not have holidays and the right to a day off?
      Mr. Redwood: My question on the nursing home was whether, given that what the hon. Lady regards as a
      226
      desirable improvement will be introduced, the Government will pay for it. They must, or people will not get the care they need.
      Maria Eagle: People will not get the care they need if the work force who are providing that care do not have holidays, cannot afford to take any time off and are being ground into stress-related illness. What are the costs of that? The right hon. Gentleman has made no reference to that.
      What we have heard from Opposition Members tonight are further symptoms of their Gradgrind approach to industrial relations. They think that employees can be motivated to work for a living only by threats and big sticks such as fear of dismissal and lousy conditions at work. Anyone who has ever worked in the private sector, as I have, knows that the best way to motivate people at work is to lead by example and have team working and fair treatment. We are talking about basic decency—nobody should object to that.
      I have a number of world-class companies in my constituency, including Glaxo Wellcome, Eli Lilley, Medeva Pharma and Ford Jaguar. I regularly meet their representatives, and I often ask them what is the most important reason for their success. Pharmaceutical companies in my constituency were in desperate trouble in the 1980s and almost closed. Unlike 25 per cent. of manufacturing industry in Liverpool, which closed in the first 18 months of Tory government—from 1979 to 1981—those companies managed to stay afloat. When I asked them how they did so, they said that it depended overwhelmingly on the commitment, time and effort of their staff. They accept, as does any decent employer, that one gets those results from people not by grinding their noses into the dirt but by treating them well, taking account of what they think, motivating them and having team working. That is the way of the future, but the Tories have not yet accepted that.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson), who has extensive experience in this field. He said that the Conservatives are living in the past. The Tory legacy shows why the regulations are needed. There are 2.5 million working people in this country who have fewer than three weeks' paid leave a year, an amount which is a basic decency. There are 2.7 million employees who usually work more than 48 hours a week. People cannot do that for long periods without suffering an impact on their health.
      Mr. Phil Hope: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that we shall need to be very vigilant when implementing the working time directive. I have information concerning an unscrupulous employment agency operating in my constituency. One of the people employed by the agency has been advised that, if she does not sign an agreement, she will lose her job. That is clearly an attempt by an unscrupulous agency to bypass the regulations, which are designed to protect workers' rights. We must be ceaselessly vigilant to ensure that such agencies are brought to book.
      Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right. There are examples in other industries of people who have been put under duress to sign opt-outs. Once the regulations have been implemented and the Government have had an opportunity to monitor their implementation, they should

      227
      consider whether duress is being placed on workers to make them opt out. If there is evidence of duress, the Government should ensure that it does not continue.
      The sawmill sector has already been referred to. I have an interest in the print trade because my father used to work in it. There are examples in that, trade of federations of employers, such as the Paper Federation and the Corrugated Packaging Federation, amicably reaching agreements with the Graphical, Paper and Media Union for implementing the regulations. That is the way forward. Good employers recognise, as do good employees, that the regulations set basic minimum standards. We should congratulate the Government on implementing them, and we should make sure that bad employers who do not implement them are pursued.
      8.3 pm
      Mr. David Chidgey: I shall be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. My colleagues and I support the principles behind the working time regulations because we believe that sensible, well-designed regulations that preserve individual choice and guarantee minimum working conditions are an essential part of a modern industrial democracy.
      We disagree with the Government on the manner in which the regulations have been introduced. These ground-breaking regulations are controversial in some sectors of the economy. Industry, commerce and the unions have concerns and fears about the way in which they will be implemented. All those issues could have been dealt with in a proper debate in Parliament at the right time. That is why I introduced early-day motion 1601 not at the end of the Session, but on 23 July 1998, with a full week left before the recess. Sadly, there was no response from the Government.
      I have always understood that statutory instruments are used when it is necessary to introduce non-controversial legislation that does not require full debate in Parliament. We know that these regulations are controversial and that industry and commerce have concerns about them. The Government should have made the effort to have a proper debate in Parliament before the regulations were introduced. Many of the problems highlighted by industry and commerce could have been dealt with, and Ministers could have provided clarification in the proper forum. That would have helped the implementation of the regulations to proceed more smoothly.
      Officials in the Department of Trade and Industry are still unable to answer basic questions about how the regulations should be implemented. What is working time? What is travel time? The classic example is when one is asked to go from London to a meeting in Edinburgh. If one takes the overnight sleeper to arrive in Edinburgh for a morning meeting, is the travelling part of working time or is it one's own time?
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Chidgey: There is little time left and I must continue.
      Another example is when one is asked to take a client out for lunch or dinner. Is that entertainment in one's own time or is it working time? I hope that the Minister can clarify those issues. He must be aware of them. I am sure
      228
      that many people have taken him out for lunch and asked him whether they are working or entertaining him. I mean that in the nicest possible way; I do not want to comment on his figure—perhaps there is another reason for that.
      The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) said that agency workers were exploited and told that they would lose their jobs. There is now an obligation on agencies to provide their workers with paid holidays. I agree with that measure, but it has a knock-on effect. Are employers who currently take on agency workers on long-term contracts prepared to recognise the additional costs that the agencies will have to bear through fixed-price contracts? Will they renegotiate? My worry is that Government Departments that use agency workers are reluctant to accommodate the increased costs faced by bona fide good agencies.
      I shall give some examples of concerns in my constituency related to whether industries are able to claim exemptions. Eastleigh has three major bakeries serving the region. The baking industry has a long tradition of night working. I am told that it is essential, in order to keep the baking process running on a 24-hour basis to produce the goods that serve the community. I add that night workers in my constituency are not being exploited or coerced into working night shifts, which are well established. Eastleigh has only 3 per cent. unemployment, which, statistically, is zero unemployment, so people are not being forced into those jobs. Will the baking industry be exempt?
      Mrs. Ray Michie: My hon. Friend has referred to bakeries, but very little has been said about the fishing industry. We have established that the industry has exemptions, but the Minister said that they were negotiated separately. We need clarification about whether those negotiations have been completed and whether it is absolutely certain that self-employed share fishermen will be exempt. They cannot stick to inflexible working hours when they are doing dangerous fishing work and competing with the elements.
      Mr. Chidgey: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that the Minister will respond to it.
      Those who want to be able not to work on Sundays are concerned that the 14-day contract laws will weaken their position. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.
      There is confusion among those who will have to work and abide by the regulations. Apart from the need for clarification, the main concern is that unscrupulous employers have the opportunity to find loopholes in the legislation. We have already heard some examples. I have heard of employees being threatened that their contracts will be reviewed and their pay and conditions changed if they do not sign up to an exemption from the 48-hour rule. Many people are employed on conditions that say that they will work for more than 48 hours a week. What will happen to them if they sign up to working 48 hours? Will pay cuts be imposed on them? That is not what we want.
      I know of one employer who has suddenly changed the calendar. As far as he is concerned, his employees now work on a 54-week year. That is a neat way of reducing the hours worked per week to less than 48.
      There is muddle, confusion and ambiguity. I do not want the regulations to create a field day for lawyers. We have already heard predictions of a spate of

      229
      industrial tribunal cases. We do not know how tribunals will react. I am concerned that many firms legitimately trying to operate the regulations correctly could find that they have unintentionally broken the law. We support sensible, clear working time regulations, but the Government have a long way to go to address the genuine concerns of those who will have to operate them.
      I would appreciate more guidance from the Minister on how the regulations should be implemented and how the concerns will be addressed. If he cannot do that tonight, I should like a commitment to providing additional information to help people to follow the law.
      8.11 pm
      Mr. Bill Rammell: The working time directive is an important step in creating a fairer, safer and more productive workplace, based on partnership rather than conflict and exploitation. In that spirit of partnership, it is important to make it clear that employees have the right to work beyond 48 hours if they want. We have heard tosh and nonsense from the shadow Secretary of State about the hours that the Speakers or Members of Parliament work. That is an erroneous point.
      I am not a dewy-eyed romantic who believes that workers and trade unionists are never wrong. Before the election, I was a senior manager in the public sector and had direct responsibility for some low-paid employees. I understand the frustration caused by the need for adaptability and flexibility in the workplace. However, that adaptability and flexibility needs to be underpinned by a shared commitment and enthusiasm.
      In government, the Conservatives rejected that balance and fairness. Their track record in the 1980s was one of dismantling legislation that provided protection for working people, particularly on working hours. The message this evening from the Conservatives is that in no circumstances can social costs borne by an employer to comply with legislation be justified, yet even the Tory party acknowledges that in certain circumstances, employment legislation is necessary—on health and safety and the right to go to an industrial tribunal.
      If the principle that there are circumstances in which it is legitimate to have employment legislation is accepted, the issue at stake is how much legal protection for employees is compatible with the need for flexibility, greater productivity and the desire to create jobs. That should be the subject of a mature debate, not the knockabout party posturing that we have heard in the House this evening. The Conservatives are saying that any regulation in the workplace is wrong.
      I am not saying that we should return to some of the restrictive practices of the past. However, the pendulum swung too far in favour of the employer against the needs of the employee in the 1980s.
      Mr. John Smith: Does my hon. Friend recognise that that pendulum swung back further in some regions than in others? The terms and conditions of employment in Wales are among the worst in the United Kingdom. The proposal will be welcome in the Principality.
      Mr. Rammell: Some regions suffered more than others, and the measure will be welcome.
      230
      The working time directive must be judged on the balance between the need for the measure and the extent to which it may have adverse consequences. There is certainly a need. Britain works the longest hours in Europe. There is evidence from the CBI that absenteeism in the workplace costs £25 billion a year. The health risks of long working hours are well documented. There are many costs to family life and other factors that need to be taken into account.
      Given all those adverse consequences, we have to ask whether long hours bring higher productivity. The answer is emphatically no. We work the longest hours in Europe, yet our productivity levels are far worse than those of Japan, the USA, France and Germany. There is evidence from the engineering industry in the early 1980s that a negotiated reduction in working hours can lead to higher productivity and the creation of further jobs.
      Finally, I should like to deal briefly with some of the arguments by the Conservatives this evening. We have been accused of sneaking the legislation out. How can we sneak out a measure that we said explicitly in our manifesto that we intended to deliver? We are accused of caving in to the European Commission. How can we cave in on a measure that we have advocated and said that we intend to implement? That is nonsense. The Conservatives have put forward a series of contradictions. It is just party posturing. We have heard a lot about job losses. If the shadow Secretary of State has any evidence that any of the job losses that we have heard about recently are directly attributable to the 48-hour working week, he should stand up now and justify his comments. He cannot, because he has no evidence.
      The measure is about fairness, partnership and creating the conditions for higher productivity. I welcome the fact that the Government are bringing it forward.
      8.17 pm
      Mr. John Gummer: When such a change is proposed, it is first reasonable to ask that the House should have time to discuss it before it is put into operation. I do not find many of the extreme arguments about the measure persuasive, but our ability to discuss the issue is important.
      Secondly, if we are to have such legislation, it should be introduced in as user-friendly a way as possible. As hon. Members on both sides know, many people around the country have found the way in which the legislation is being implemented confusing and less user-friendly than it could have been.
      Thirdly, while I am not suggesting that the Government should change their view—they fought an election on the issue—I wonder whether they could have argued in the European Community for lighter regulation, even in the areas in which there might have been disagreement between us.
      Fourthly, I wonder whether the Government have betrayed their cause. They say that the legislation will not be as onerous as the Conservatives have suggested, because, just as the minimum wage is so low that it has caused great criticism outside, they have made sure that the working time directive has many exemptions. What have we heard from the Liberals? They have asked for exemptions for group after group. If the principle is right, it is extremely difficult to understand why we must rush in to stipulate this exemption or that exemption.

      231
      In general, I do not find any objections to the working time proposals; they are perfectly reasonable. I object to the fact that they are enshrined in legislation and regulations that will impose considerable extra cost on business. I do not worry too much about extra costs that result in people getting a better deal. I worry about the extra costs that the Government impose; they are expensive.
      Such extra costs are being imposed in areas where there is no possibility of recompense. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) referred to local authorities. He was—I hope, not purposely—misunderstood by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). He was saying that, if costs rise as a result of the directive, for reasons with which the hon. Lady would be happy, the local authority that has to pay the extra cost of placing old and vulnerable people in nursing homes must either receive more money from the Government or be able to place fewer old and vulnerable people. There may well be a very good answer to this problem; I am sure that the Minister will give it.
      I do not understand why we have not had a proper debate before now, so that the reasonable worries and criticisms of people like myself, who are perfectly moderate on the issue, have no antagonism toward the European Union and think that, in general, such directives are not quite as dreadful as they sometimes seem, can be met. It is another example of the House being bypassed—as it has been on almost every issue. That is why I intervened on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he was in the Chamber for a short period. The Government think that the way in which to do business is to speak to the press and not to Parliament. In that way, the view given to the public is not the one that Parliament has debated, but the one that is spun to the press.
      We are a parliamentary democracy. Those of us who believe in parliamentary democracy, even if we are not overwhelmed by this subject, must stand up time and again to demand that the House debates such questions, so that it takes the decisions and is able to help the Government to be a better Government. The press will not help this Government to be a better Government, but the Opposition can if there are debates rather than periods of an hour and a half in which the matter is not sufficiently discussed.
      8.22 pm
      The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I shall try my best in the time available to answer the questions of right hon. and hon. Members. I give a commitment that I will write to them on the specific points that I do not answer in my speech.
      I shall first deal with the question of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) about share fishermen. The issue will be the subject of consultation with the industry. We shall make submissions based on the appropriateness of any measure to specific industries. We did of course exempt share fishermen from the national minimum wage on the basis that they are self-employed. I hope that that assists the hon. Lady. Following consultation on all possible excluded sectors, the Government will make proposals in a way that meets the needs of particular industries.
      232
      If the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who raised the issue of bakers, does not mind my saying so, he cannot have his cake and eat it. He cannot on the one hand say that he supports the proposals and on the other say that he wants this or that to be excluded. The baking industry is covered by the regulations.
      The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) raised questions in respect of the House and its staff. His comments about the Speaker seemed flippant, given that the holder of that office is not covered by a contract of employment. The staff of both Houses of Parliament are covered by the proposals.
      The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) raised questions about parliamentary scrutiny. As a member of the previous Government, he will know that, in 1972, the then Conservative Government passed the European Communities Act, which provides for European directives to be implemented by statutory instrument. All directives, including this one, have been scrutinised by the Select Committee on European Legislation. There has been public consultation on implementation—of two directives, if the previous consultation conducted by the Conservative Administration counts. [Interruption.] I am not running away from the debate. Indeed, 1 am absolutely delighted that we can debate these issues.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McCartney: No, I have barely begun my speech.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McCartney:No.
      The Government are very proud of the fact that, within 18 months of coming to power, they have ensured that 3 million workers in Britain who did not get a holiday will receive one. Protection is being introduced.
      The speech of the right hon. Member for Wokingham was hysterical. It was mostly trivia, and came from a member of a previous Government under whom a business went bust every three minutes, and 10 million people in England alone were unemployed at least once. Yet now he comes to the Dispatch Box and tries to trivialise issues around fairness in the workplace. The debate, and his 25-minute tirade, explain why Labour Members sit on the Government Benches and the Tories are in opposition.
      Mr. Redwood rose—
      Mr. McCartney: Listen first of all!
      The debate has highlighted the different values of the parties: exploitation versus fairness, no respect versus respect, hire-and-fire culture versus partnership, bad employers versus good employers. The right hon. Gentleman used to work for Baroness Thatcher, who once coined the phrase that there was no such thing as community. He has coined another phrase: there is no such thing as fairness in the workplace. He said clearly that the Conservative party is on the side of poor employment practice. He should answer whether, at the next election, his party would remove the rights that this directive provides for many millions of British workers.
      Mr. Redwood: I made it very clear that the Conservative party wants rising standards at work and

      233
      better quality of employment. We have our ways of achieving that, which happen to be different from those of the Government. I repeat the question that the Minister does not want to answer. Given that better standards of work in nursing homes will cost money, will the Government pay for those better standards or throw old people on the street?
      Mr. McCartney: The Government have put £21 billion extra into health and social care, which were underfunded by the previous Government, who created a crisis in both public and private sector community care. The right hon. Gentleman argues that vulnerable elderly people, disabled people and young children with special needs should be looked after by a work force who are falling on their knees through tiredness from working excessive hours. What a scandal!
      Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McCartney: No, I will not give way. The right hon. Gentleman had 25 minutes to speak. He berates the Government but he cannot take the truth when we set it out. The argument he put before the House is quite clear: he would support employers in the care sector who exploit their workers to the point that proper medical and social care needs are put at risk.
      This Government believe in fairness. We believe that workers should enjoy basic protection against exploitation by unscrupulous employers. We recognise the fundamental imbalance in the relationship between worker and employer in the workplace where, on some occasions, workers need support. I thank my hon. Friends who have participated in the debate. In their short speeches, they have set out clearly why the legislation is necessary.
      We recognise that providing such protection is not necessary for the majority of employees, but that such protection must apply to workers equally. It is important that good employers should not be undercut by bad ones who profit by exploiting their workers. That is not good for competitiveness or the United Kingdom in the long run.
      In government, Conservative Members tried to create a Britain that was the sweatshop capital of Europe. We want to be the investment and production centre of Europe, based on high standards. We are therefore committed to creating a flexible labour market that is underpinned by fair minimum standards. The first step was the national minimum wage legislation; implementation of the proposals in the White Paper "Fairness at Work" will follow. Implementation of the working time directive represents another major stepping stone.
      The regulations provide seven new rights. No worker can be forced to work more than an average of 48 hours a week. There is a right to paid annual leave of three weeks, rising to four weeks. Would the right hon. Member for Wokingham and his colleagues withdraw that right from the 3 million workers who will benefit from it for the first time? Will there be a wage cut under the Tories, as they withdraw the minimum wage and paid holidays?
      Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
      Mr.McCartney: Sit down.
      234
      There are rights to rest breaks during the working day. There are rights to rest periods from work, including the right to a day off a week. My God, who would object to someone having a day off a week? [HON. MEMBERS: "They would."] Only the Conservatives. There is special protection for night workers, including a right to health assessments. There is special protection for young workers. Moreover, there is protection from unfair dismissal or detriment for asserting those rights.
      The Working Time Regulations 1998 provide protection for the most vulnerable workers and enable them to enjoy rights similar to those that the majority of workers in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe already have. About 90 per cent. of workers in this country already have paid annual leave. Why are the Tories campaigning to prevent the other 10 per cent. having the same rights?
      It takes the biscuit when the right hon. Member for Wokingham argues for 25 minutes against the proposals when he has had, typically, 16 weeks leave this year, paid for by the British taxpayer.
      Mr. Redwood indicated dissent
      Mr. McCartney: I shall take some examples of cases of the type that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues believe should not be helped. A lady writes to me:
      "My husband works for a large medical company and has for the past 2 years worked on average 51 hours a week. During this period he has been off sick twice through stress and exploitation".
      A contract cleaner in Oxford wrote to the Prime Minister:
      "I would like in due course, if it's within your power, that we should all have at least two weeks fully paid holiday a year"
      We have given her that commitment.
      A lady from Sussex wrote to me about her daughter, who must work long hours and double shifts without proper breaks and is subjected to abuse by the manager. The regulations will combat such exploitation.
      Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McCartney: No. The right hon. Gentleman had 25 minutes.
      Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman should give way instead of talking fiction.
      Mr. McCartney: The right hon. Gentleman does not like to hear the truth. As someone who was a member of a Government who could not tell the truth, he does not like to hear it.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to someone who has not even had a single minute?
      Mr. McCartney: You are not worth a minute. That type of exploitation—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The Minister has indicated that he will not give way at the moment.
      Mr. Bercow: He cannot take it.
      Mr. McCartney: Oh, I can take it, all right; I am enjoying myself.

      235
      For the first time in a long time, we have a Government who are prepared to stand up for workers' rights against Conservative Members' bully-boy tactics. As we reach the end of the century, we cannot continue the long hours culture—long hours, low pay, low esteem. Employers do not want it; we do not want it. The only employers who want it are the employers who side with the Conservatives—those who want to exploit their work force for an advantage in the marketplace against other employers. This is not just a social issue; there is a strong business case for these proposals.
      The right hon. Member for Wokingham spoke about costs. In the last year of the Conservative Government, the Confederation of British Industry estimated that £25 billion was lost to the economy as a result of unregulated absenteeism because of the sweatshop economy that the Conservatives controlled. Another £1.8 billion was lost as a result of high staff turnover—in sectors where the greatest number of jobs is lost due to low status and low morale.
      The proposals before us will cut that huge loss to the British economy, and allow employers to compete on quality, but not by pursuing a downward spiral of wages and conditions. The Government are not the only ones who hold that opinion. The consultation was interesting. I quote the views of some employers.
      "The Institute of Personnel and Development believes that the current proposals represent a significant improvement on those contained in the consultation document issued by the last Government. In many areas, the new document takes account of comments made …on issues that are important to the practicality of the Directive's provisions and their acceptability to both employers and employees."
      Manpower, a big agency employer, said:
      "Most notable for us has been Peter Mandelson's recent arrangement concerning the Government's intentions to respect temporary workers. Giving them the minimum pay, the working time regulations and 'Fairness at Work' achieves a major step forward in establishing minimum standards across the UK work force."
      I could go on and on and on, quoting employers who support the proposals.
      Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McCartney: No; I am not giving way.
      Following the consultation, small business employers telephoned the Department, expressing their pleasure that at last they would compete on a level playing field, instead of against employers who undercut them by exploiting their work force. Good employers in this country overwhelmingly support the proposals.
      The right hon. Member for Wokingham spoke about record keeping. There are no over-burdensome bureaucratic record-keeping requirements. Employers need not keep records for entitlements to paid annual leave, rest breaks, daily rest or weekly rest. They need not monitor and record every hour that a worker works. They merely have to be able to show that they have complied with the limits, and how they do so is up to them. [Laughter.] Many employers[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen. Many employers already have records showing the hours that their workers have worked, and that relates to their normal business practice.
      236
      The Health and Safety Executive has said that, in other circumstances, it would be sufficient to have robust management systems that can show when workers are in danger of working close to the limit, and so take steps to monitor those workers more closely.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley rose—
      Mr. Gummer rose—
      Mr. McCartney: There is a slight anomaly—a requirement of the directive that hourly records be kept for workers who have agreed to work in excess of the 48-hour weekly working time limit. However, I make it perfectly clear that that is the result of the previous Government's woeful and bungled negotiations in 1993. If anyone is responsible for imposing unnecessary red tape on business, it is the Conservative party, because the Conservatives carried out the negotiations before the general election.
      Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
      Mr. McCartney: No.
      I shall make a few points on the timing of implementation of the regulations. Some recent comments—
      Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly, the Minister is concerned about the time limits that have been artificially set on the debate. Our normal working time in the House continues until 10 o'clock. Do you have any power, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow the debate to continue until 10 o'clock, so that we may vote at our usual time, and so that the Minister may give way in the usual fashion?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The length of the debate is regulated by Standing Order. The hon. Gentleman is only wasting more time.
      Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman also took up time at the start of the debate in fruitless points of order.
      I should like to make a few points in relation to the timing of the implementation. Some recent comments make me wonder whether some Conservative Members have been asleep for the past 18 months. The working time directive is no secret that has been sprung on an unsuspecting world. The directive was agreed under the previous Government in 1993. It was due to be implemented by November 1996. However, all the previous Government did was try to buy time, leaving business uncertain, and spending taxpayers' money on futile attempts in the European Court to prevent the implementation of the directive.
      What were the Tories preventing being implemented? Basic minimum standards for 3 million workers in Britain to have the right occasionally to say to their employer, "I am not working 80 or 90 hours a week. I want a break; I want a rest. I think that I am entitled, at the end of the century, to some holiday pay." That is what the previous Government tried to prevent by using taxpayers' money in a court case.

      237
      Belatedly, at the end of 1996, forced and humiliated by the European Court, the previous Government issued a vague consultation document that made the situation no clearer. It has been left to the present Government to sort out the mess that they left us. We said in our manifesto that we would implement the directive. The timetable for implementation was announced to Parliament in February. We consulted on detailed proposals, including draft regulations, in April. The finalised regulations were laid before Parliament on 30 July, and came into force on 1 October.
      It should be remembered that the implementation directive is already two years overdue because of the incompetence of the previous Government. We all know that the Conservatives, as has been confirmed tonight, do not want people in Britain to be rewarded with proper rest and paid holidays. During the debate, an Opposition Member advocated pay of £2 a day to replace the national minimum wage.
      As a legacy of the previous Government, there are workers in Britain who must work 100 hours a week for minimal rates of pay. The working time directive, alongside the national minimum wage, will start to end the cycle of deprivation and exploitation in the work force. The Government are committed to a positive relationship with Europe and take their treaty responsibilities seriously. It has been necessary to take prompt action to rectify the neglect of the previous Administration.
      There has recently been correspondence from hon. Members expressing concern about the so-called 12-day working week. I shall clarify the matter now. It is totally misleading to suggest that the regulations diminish the rights of workers or place them in a more vulnerable position in terms of "Sunday Special" arrangements. The regulations include a right to a day off a week, which may be averaged over a period of two weeks. That is a new right. Workers had no such right to a day off until 1 October this year. Therefore, I fail to see how the arrangement could do anything but improve the lot of workers
      The right to a day off may be averaged over a period of two weeks to allow flexibility and avoid unnecessary burdens on business. In most cases, rest will be taken on a weekly basis, but certain industries require differing and fluctuating work patterns that are not conducive to such a standardised arrangement. That flexible approach received widespread support in the responses to the consultation on the draft regulations.
      The Government believe that the regulations provide minimum fair standards of protection for workers exploited by unscrupulous employers. Such rights have been denied to workers in this country for far too long. That is due to the Opposition, who continue to try to deny others the rights that they enjoy, such as paid leave. here has been ample time for consideration of the measure. I hope that the House will support me in opposing the motion.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—
      Mr. Hogg rose—
      Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am about to put the Question.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the hour and a half is not up yet.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hour and a half is very nearly up. If the mover of the motion had chosen to
      238
      respond at the end of the debate, that would be in order. The Minister has responded to the debate and I am about to put the Question.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Redwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I allowed my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) to intervene. He has been present for the entire debate and had important points to make, but he has been squeezed out by the Minister. I would regard it as a great courtesy if he were able to make his points.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already pointed out that it must be the mover of the motion who responds to the debate on that motion.
      Mr. Redwood rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point of order and I shall now put the Question.
      Mr. Hogg rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall put the Question.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 358.

      Division No. 368]

      [8.43 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Gale, Roger

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Garnier, Edward

      Bercow, John

      Gibb, Nick

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gill, Christopher

      Blunt, Crispin

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Boswell, Tim

      Gray, James

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Green, Damian

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Greenway, John

      Brady, Graham

      Grieve, Dominic

      Brazier, Julian

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hammond, Philip

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hayes, John

      Burns, Simon

      Heald, Oliver

      Butterfill, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Cash, William

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Horam, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hunter, Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Collins, Tim

      Colvin, Michael

      Key, Robert

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Cran, James

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Leigh, Edward

      Duncan, Alan

      Letwin, Oliver

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lidington, David

      Evans, Nigel

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Faber, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Fabricant, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Flight, Howard

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      239

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Steen, Anthony

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Malins, Humfrey

      Syms, Robert

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Norman, Archie

      Townend, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Page, Richard

      Trend, Michael

      Paice, James

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Paterson, Owen

      Walter, Robert

      Pickles, Eric

      Waterson, Nigel

      Prior, David

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Whittingdale, John

      Randall, John

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Wilkinson, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Ruffley, David

      Woodward, Shaun

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Yeo, Tim

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spring, Richard

      Sir David Madel and Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Caborn, Richard

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Allen, Graham

      Canavan, Dennis

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Casale, Roger

      Ashton, Joe

      Caton, Martin

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Chaytor, David

      Austin, John

      Chidgey, David

      Baker, Norman

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Banks, Tony

      Clapham, Michael

      Barnes, Harry

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Bayley, Hugh

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Beggs, Roy

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Clelland, David

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cohen, Harry

      Benton, Joe

      Coleman, Iain

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Colman, Tony

      Berry, Roger

      Connarty, Michael

      Best, Harold

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Betts, Clive

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cooper, Yvette

      Blizzard, Bob

      Corbett, Robin

      Boateng, Paul

      Cotter, Brian

      Borrow, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cranston, Ross

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Crausby, David

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cummings, John

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Browne, Desmond

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Burden, Richard

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Dalyell, Tam

      240

      Darvill, Keith

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

      Davidson, Ian

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Drew, David

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Edwards, Huw

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Efford, Clive

      Keetch, Paul

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Kidney, David

      Fatchett, Derek

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fearn, Ronnie

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Flint, Caroline

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Follett, Barbara

      Laxton, Bob

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foulkes, George

      Levitt, Tom

      Fyfe, Maria

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Galloway, George

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Gapes, Mike

      Linton, Martin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Livingstone, Ken

      Gerrard, Neil

      Livsey, Richard

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Goggins, Paul

      Lock, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McAllion, John

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gorrie, Donald

      McCabe, Steve

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Grocott, Bruce

      Macdonald, Calum

      Gunnell, John

      McDonnell, John

      Hain, Peter

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hanson, David

      McLeish, Henry

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McNamara, Kevin

      Healey, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Heppell, John

      McWalter, Tony

      Hesford, Stephen

      McWilliam, John

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Marek, Dr John

      Hoey, Kate

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hope, Phil

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Maxton, John

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Meale, Alan

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Merron, Gillian

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Michael, Alun

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Hurst, Alan

      Miller, Andrew

      Hutton, John

      Mitchell, Austin

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Moore, Michael

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Jamieson, David

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      241

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Morley, Elliot

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mountford, Kali

      Snape, Peter

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Soley, Clive

      Mullin, Chris

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Spellar, John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Norris, Dan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stevenson, George

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Olner, Bill

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Öpik, Lembit

      Stringer, Graham

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pearson, Ian

      Swinney, John

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter L

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pound, Stephen

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Timms, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Todd, Mark

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Touhig, Don

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Trickett, Jon

      Purchase, Ken

      Truswell, Paul

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rammell, Bill

      Vaz, Keith

      Rapson, Syd

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wallace, James

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rogers, Allan

      Watts, David

      Rooker, Jeff

      Webb, Steve

      Rooney, Terry

      White, Brian

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Roy, Frank

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Salter, Martin

      Willis, Phil

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wilson, Brian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Winnick, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (DoncasterC)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wise, Audrey

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wood, Mike

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Woolas, Phil

      Sheerman, Barry

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wray, James

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Singh, Marsha

      Wyatt, Derek

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mr. Greg Pope and Mr. Keith Hill.

      Question accordingly negatived.

      Russia
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
      8.56 pm
      Mr. Paul Keetch: I am pleased to initiate my second Adjournment debate since my election on an international subject that is very close to my heart. I chose to debate this topic tonight as a result of an Inter-Parliamentary Union trip that I made to Russia last June. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) led the trip, to Moscow and St. Petersburg, and I am delighted to see several members of that delegation in the Chamber tonight. The right hon. Gentleman and some other members of the delegation were returning to Russia, but it was my first visit to that country. They were able to see the changes that had taken place since their previous visits, while I could only look on in wonder.
      To understand the economic crisis now befalling Russia, one must understand the political crisis. If one were to ask schoolchildren the date of the Russian revolution, they would answer "1917". However, the revolution of perestroika, begun in the late 1980s by Mikhail Gorbachev, is far and away the greatest change that Russian society has seen this century. That revolution brought so much political change so quickly that the political crisis that followed it has now led to economic catastrophe.
      Mr. Nigel Jones: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on what the history books will make of Mikhail Gorbachev? Some people see him as the man who changed the world, but the Russian people who voted in the last presidential election gave him only 1 per cent. of the vote—so they are not happy with him. I had the privilege of meeting Mikhail Gorbachev in 1993 when he visited my constituency. What does my hon. Friend make of the long-term view of what Mikhail Gorbachev has done to a once great super-power?
      Mr. Keetch: I think that Mikhail Gorbachev will be remembered slightly better by history than the present president, President Yeltsin. Russia is the one place in the world where I would not advocate that people vote Liberal Democrat. It is somewhat embarrassing every time a Liberal Democrat visits that country.
      The revolution that brought so much political change has led to an economic crisis in Russia. In short, the transition that the United Kingdom effected over hundreds of years—the transition from absolute ruler to democracy—has taken place in Russia in under a decade. It is no wonder that there are problems. It is interesting to examine what has changed. Russia has gone from a super-power surrounded by client states, with power vested in a few people, to a country by itself. In doing so, it has lost many of its more prosperous and plentiful territories. It has been stripped of much of its international pride and position. It has seen the dismantling of the military economic machine that used to drive it. In short, Russia is now regarded by the world as the loser in the cold war.
      With no democratic tradition to fall back on, it is not surprising that, in 10 years, such dramatic change has been less than smooth. The reforms that President

      243
      Gorbachev introduced, ending in the coup that almost toppled him, resulted in the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. The changes to the constitution forced upon parliament by President Yeltsin ended in his troops shelling Parliament in October 1993. The subsequent rivalry between the Duma and the president continues today. These are some of the factors that have formed a breeding ground for economic chaos.
      Boris Yeltsin's health, too, declining during this period, has led to a situation today which would have been, for many Russians, unthinkable only a few years ago—a Russian president who is the butt of jokes at home and abroad, a living embarrassment to all Russians. It is no exaggeration to say that the Russian economy today is as sick as the Russian president.
      It is sometimes difficult to make comparisons, but the output of Russia now is barely half what it was in 1989. Officially, central Government expenditure this year was set at 500 billion roubles, with revenue coming in at just 367 billion roubles. In other words, that is Government expenditure of £17.5 billion with an income of just £13 billion. That deficit would be bad enough, but in reality nothing like that revenue has been achieved. Add to that the crippling debt burden of 121 billion roubles a year, and the crisis was inevitable.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: Would my hon. Friend agree that the sad tale that he describes for Russia is almost the opposite of the success stories of the recovering economies such as Estonia, which broke free from the Soviet Union? Does he agree that, as Estonia develops, links with western Europe should be built? At the same time, my hon. Friend will know that there are concerns in the Baltic states that Russia might cast an ominous eye again. Does he agree with the adage that people who live in glasnost should not throw Estonians?
      Mr. Keetch: My hon. Friend is well known for his sense of humour and Estonian connections. I have visited the Baltic states, and have been to Lithuania on two occasions. I know of the enormous success and leaps forward of some of the Baltic economies. Estonia is a shining example, and we should certainly support its economy.
      The crisis in Russia is far from over. The Morgan Stanley Dean Witter brief on the Russian economy recently highlighted industrial production in August down by 8.5 per cent. The economic growth forecasts that it was suggesting, being at the bottom range of minus 2 per cent. for 1998 and 1999, are being revised downwards to minus 5 per cent. for this year and minus 10 per cent. for next year.
      In the cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg that I and my colleagues visited, the semblance of Russian economic prosperity exists. There are McDonald's restaurants, expensive shops and advertising, all features of the Russian scene that are new over the past few years. However, it is not necessary to go far from the city centres to come across vast Soviet-style tenement blocks where millions of people live. These are huge, cold and dark buildings, often with no electricity or water supply. These are the hovels which ordinary Russians call home.
      In St. Petersburg alone, the population has fallen by more than 600,000 since the early 1990s. People have moved into the country to try to find food. Those who
      244
      stay have their own allotments. They try to grow what they can. However, the search for food is a desperate one. Life in the provinces is even worse than that in the cities.
      Anybody who has seen a second world war film, especially about prisoner of war camps, will have heard about Red Cross parcels. Yet today the Red Cross is trying to launch a £10 million appeal for food for Russia. It is distributing Red Cross food parcels to people who cannot feed themselves in Russia. This once great super-power now receives international food aid.
      Medicine, too, is in short supply. Shortages of basic medicine have led to a huge rise in diseases that we in the west long thought had disappeared. Poor diet and even starvation have led to huge numbers of Russians dying from economic neglect. Last year alone, more than 10,000 prisoners in Russian gaols died of illness. The life expectancy of the Russian male is now below 60. In all, last year, almost 25.000 Russians died of tuberculosis, and another 2 million are infected. Even so, in Moscow four hospitals are kept just for Members of Parliament, bureaucrats and army chiefs, ensuring that the elite remain healthy. Even bank robbers in Russia now go short. In a recent break-in at the Vimpel bank in central Moscow, thieves got away with the total takings of just 13,000 roubles—about £120.
      Perhaps the biggest and most widely talked about of the economic problems is the late payment of salaries. Wage arrears in the public sector are estimated to be around £750 million, resulting in despair for hundreds of thousands of families. Doctors, nurses and teachers go unpaid. In Russia today, people strike not for better pay, but simply to be paid.
      The story is similar for state pensioners, and even in the armed forces salaries are sometimes not paid. Wage arrears were supposed to have been stopped last July, but in reality still exist. Stories of soldiers selling off their weapons and equipment to terrorists for money to live are not exaggerated. Not surprisingly, that has led to huge discontent in the army—no wonder, in a country where officers and their families sleep four to a room.
      In 1997 alone, 304 murders were recorded in the Russian armed forces, and, following the Chechen military debacle which shook Russian military confidence, the economic crisis has hit the once proud Red Army. An army that once defeated Hitler's Nazis is now at rock bottom. There is no money for research and development, training is minimal, and exercise is unknown. Reductions in manpower in the Russian armed forces are huge, with some 300,000 officers and non-commissioned officers a year being made redundant. It is interesting that the Interior Ministry troops who were so loyal to President Yeltsin in 1993 are still being paid, but no one today believes that they would once again rush to his aid should he need it.
      Even the environment is against the Russian economy. In one region of southern Russia, Kalmykia, more than 25 villages have had to be abandoned in the past 20 years due to the spread of a desert. An area the size of Belgium is now sand.
      What can we do? One thing that anyone who knows Russia will tell us is that the Russian people have long memories. Other countries may abandon Russia and other Governments pull their people out, but we in the United Kingdom must not. We owe it to the Russian people and to world stability to ensure that the Russian foray into

      245
      democracy is a success. We must preserve the rule of law in Russia, because, if we do not, we shall simply see the rule of terror.
      Helen Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in Russia there is a great sense of friendship towards Britain, and that, as one of the major problems affecting the Russian economy is massive tax evasion and the influence of organised crime, that is one area in which that friendship could be used to assist the Russian people to tackle those problems in order to move their economy forward?
      Mr. Keetch: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She well knows the plight of the Russian people, having, like me, been a member of the IPU delegation. I am not necessarily calling for more monetary aid, but the kind of schemes that she has suggested—she is involved in schemes with the British Council—would do much to help support Russia
      When we were there, we saw the people who might lead Russia should the Russian foray into democracy fail—former Communists who believe that the Soviet-style planned economy did work, nationalists who believe that President Yeltsin illegally gave independence to Russian territories and who want those territories back. We even met liberals who talk about NATO expansion as a real threat to mother Russia. Madam Speaker has similarly returned from Russia, having met many of the same people.
      I did not initiate this debate to obtain answers, because we may not be able to give them, but the House must make it known to democrats throughout Russia that we will not abandon them. Our Government must re-emphasise their pledge to support British programmes in Russia, such as the excellent ones run by the British Council, to help democracy survive. The British Council is now looking at close links between our two nations, including links between schools, and establishing information technology links with schools and exchanges for Russian teachers and children. The Government must support those schemes. We must encourage more business and trade with Russia. Most of all, our foreign policy must support the pro-reformers and those who want democracy to survive.
      Imagine the prize of success for Russia—a country that is democratic, reformed and economically buoyant. That prize should be our principal foreign policy objective.
      Mr. Adrian Sanders: I gave my hon. Friend notice before the debate that I might intervene. Given the enormity of the problems, does he agree that no nation state alone can offer assistance, and that the best hope lies in the aid programmes to which we can contribute through the European Union?
      Mr. Keetch: My hon. Friend is right. Britain cannot solve the problems by itself, but it is important to remember that it has a special relationship with Russia. The Russian people are understandably suspicious of the Germans, the Japanese and the Americans. They would welcome British involvement, and I hope that the Government will take a lead in that.
      246
      The price of failing to support the Russian economy is huge. In its negotiations in the forthcoming weeks, the International Monetary Fund must not seek to impose on the Russian Government the terms normally accepted for IMF support, because Russia could not take them.
      Mr. David Kidney: The hon. Gentleman is developing an interesting and powerful speech. On IMF support, the conditionality that has been imposed has been to collect taxes that are lawfully due. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) referred to that a moment ago. Does he accept the fundamental point that taxes lawfully raised must be paid if Russia is to be the success that he wants it to be?
      Mr. Keetch: I certainly accept that, but I hope that the IMF will not only put in place conditions but provide practical support that will allow Russia to meet those conditions. Russia simply cannot meet those conditions by itself. As the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) said, it needs our practical help and experience in collecting those taxes.
      History has a nasty habit of repeating itself. We all know what happened to Germany in the 1930s after it had been made to pay too high a price for losing the first world war. Let us not expect Russia to pay too high a price for losing the cold war. The world has never known a super-power with a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons that cannot pay its employees. The House and the Government must get the message across to Russia that we will not let it give up on democracy. If it does, the whole world will suffer.
      9.12 pm
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I thank the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) for his initiative in introducing this debate, and congratulate him on his excellent speech and evident interest in, and concern and knowledge about, the conditions in Russia. His description of the state of the economy and of Russian society is absolutely right. As he said, gross domestic product has fallen by 10 per cent. in the past 12 months, inflation has risen by 50 per cent., and tax revenue, which was never particularly good, is shrinking rapidly. Clearly, barter and non-payment are rapidly on the rise. Perhaps most distressing of all is the catastrophic drop in life expectancy, particularly among men, since the fall of communism, exacerbated by the current economic crisis.
      The position is as serious and distressing to everyone as the hon. Gentleman has described. However, it must be understood that responsibility for tackling the problem lies, as it must, with the Russian Government. We cannot guarantee law and order, or economic stability and all the other things that Russia needs. It is for the Russian Government to take a lead and to implement the policies which will bring real economic and social benefits to a country in immense distress.
      The priority is clear: Russia needs to develop a coherent macro-economic framework and to get its public finances under control, because without that, it cannot regain economic stability. It certainly has to introduce tax and expenditure reform, and needs to restructure its banking sector, because there is near-bankruptcy or worse among many of its banks. It needs to close insolvent enterprises,

      247
      and to tackle the problem of barter and non-payment. It of course has to develop and try to enforce the essential, the basic, legal and institutional framework of a market economy, because that is clearly missing.
      The hon. Member for Hereford and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) mentioned the excellent work of the British Council. As a short-lived former vice-chair of that organisation, I also pay tribute to the work that it has been doing in know-how transfer, and in helping to build that capacity within Russia.
      The Government are not only actively monitoring the situation in Russia, but are in regular contact with our partners there, in the G7 and in the European Union. The Russian Government are, however, still formulating their economic policies. We and our international partners—this cannot be done by one country alone—remain ready to support and work with Russia, and with its Government, in support of sustained efforts towards stabilisation and reform.
      As the hon. Member for Hereford said, the international community must be ready to back International Monetary Fund financial assistance, but that assistance must be given in support of credible and sustained efforts by Russia towards stabilisation and economic reform. There is no point in supporting policies which will not work.
      We, and our partners in the EU and the G7, are more than ready to help with this process, and we are re-focusing the technical assistance programmes accordingly. The international community also needs to continue to monitor the situation on food supplies and on medical supplies. If there is clear need, we must and will be ready to ensure that humanitarian assistance is provided.
      I should like to connect the situation in Russia, which the hon. Member for Hereford described so vividly, with the second half of the title of the debate—the world economy. The direct effects of the crisis in Russia are relatively small—before the collapse, Russia contributed about 1 per cent. of total world output, and accounted for 1.5 per cent. of world trade—but that is not the case for certain countries. Ukraine, which does a quarter of its trade with Russia, was particularly badly affected, and remains so even today.
      There is also a direct impact on those banks, especially in Germany, which were severely exposed to the situation in Russia, but the indirect effects on the rest of the world economy—the contagion of the collapse in Russia and the default on debt—are of immense concern, to the hon. Member for Hereford, his hon. Friends and all of us.
      Japan, the world's second largest economy, is expected to contract by 2.5 per cent. this year, and that following several years of low growth. Another region—which, hitherto, had been the growth engine of the world economy—also faces unprecedented declines. We are all affected, and not only for humanitarian reasons. We are dependent on each other's goods and services—the Asian crisis has cut United Kingdom exports to Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand by between 50 and 60 per cent. in a single year—and, as we have seen over recent months, a weak financial system in one country then threatens the financial systems of other countries. We are having to deal with the consequences of the financial turmoil and the destabilising lack of transparency.
      248
      We are faced with a crisis that grew because of weak, under-supervised financial institutions in developing economies, and which became global because of deficiencies in supervision and in risk management, even in developed economies. It became a prolonged crisis because the initial policy responses were more suitable for over-extended pubic sectors than for over-exposed private sectors.
      Not only in Russia, but across a large part of the world, this crisis has become a human tragedy for millions of people. They are the victims of inadequate social protection. We must deal with the situation in Russia, and continue to work with the Russian Government to try to support efforts to achieve first political stabilisation and then economic and social stabilisation. We must also deal with the problems in the global economy. We must begin by addressing the short-term problems. We should recognise that the balance of risks has changed, and act accordingly.
      Monetary authorities around the world continue to be vigilant. Crucially, G7 countries have committed themselves to creating or sustaining the conditions for demand-led growth and financial stability in their own economies. In addition, we must address the underlying longer-term problems that have contributed to the current crisis in Russia, Japan and in the world economy. That requires an international financial architecture that is suited to today's global economy, not to yesterday's.
      For 50 years, the world economy has had policies for regulation, supervision, transparency and stability that were devised and developed for a world of relatively sheltered national economies with limited capital markets. We must now create procedures for supervision, transparency, regulation and stability that are as sophisticated as the markets with which they have to work, and try to prevent the collision of inadequately regulated global capital flows with inadequately developed and supervised national banking systems, which has been a common feature of the crisis in many countries.
      Mr. Michael Colvin: I hesitate to intervene, but last week I was in Moscow, and I had the opportunity to talk to members of the Duma about the current crisis in Russia. They said, "It's not money we want from the west. We need to know how we can stop our wealth draining out of our country." That is the problem at the moment. It is like pouring water into a colander. Last year, 40 per cent. of Russia's oil went on to the black market, without anyone knowing where it had gone to. They need such assistance more than some high-flown IMF package which will impose conditions that they will not be able to comply with.
      Trade is more important than anything. Over the years, the central European free trade agreement has worked well for the countries of central Europe. The sooner we extend that eastwards into Russia, whose centre of gravity is European, the better it will be, not only for Russia, but for the rest of Europe and the rest of the world.
      Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes two extremely important points. He is right about the importance of trying to re-establish and to develop trading relationships with Russia, and to draw it into that broader European family. That in turn depends on securing a financial ands

      249
      legal infrastructure for its economy. As he rightly says, the wealth and income that they ought to have in Russia is draining out faster than they can replenish it. That is an issue for those who might wish, or be able, to trade with Russia, and to benefit from such a trading relationship. The trading relationship itself will require an adequate economic and legal infrastructure—in other words, the fundamentals of a market economy in Russia.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin). It does not come down simply to the question of a financial architecture and sorting out Russia's banking system, although that is important; it also comes down to technical assistance. It comes down to the help that we can give the Russians to secure the basics of a functioning market economy with a functioning legal and contractual system, and with something resembling an efficient tax collection system.
      Unfortunately, Russia must act on many different fronts at the same time. I do not think that it is possible to work on the trading end of the relationship without also working with Russia to put in place the basics of the economic infrastructure that it so badly needs.
      That, in a sense, is precisely the point of what we and our partners in the G7 and the European Union are trying to do to establish a stronger, modernised global financial and trading architecture. National Governments, helped by international institutions, need to set clear, clearly understood, long-term policy objectives that will build confidence and establish their credibility. That applies to all countries, whether they are beginning the process of creating and developing market economies or are a long way down the line. That is why the Government have welcomed the International Monetary Fund's new code of good practice on fiscal policy, and look forward to similar codes of conduct on monetary and financial policy.
      250
      The new economy, however, also requires much more transparency in the private sector. That is why we are urging the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to conclude rapidly its work on a code of conduct for corporate governance.
      Events in Russia—and, indeed, throughout the world—in recent months have identified inadequacies in our understanding of the interrelationship between financial markets and between countries, inadequacies in the quality of risk assessment, and gaps in the international regulatory system. There is an urgent need for us to look at the scope for a new Standing Committee and for global financial regulation.
      We must also continue to be vigilant in regard to the threat of protectionism. It is perhaps most likely to arise in relation to the countries of south-east Asia, but—as the hon. Member for Hereford pointed out—it is crucial in terms of our own relationships with the countries of eastern Europe. We need to work with the World Trade Organisation to ensure that there is a proper start to the next round of trade negotiations, so that we can take the necessary steps to ensure openness in trade.
      Last night—also in response to the Liberal Democrats—my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I outlined the measures that the Government were taking, and had taken, to put the United Kingdom on to a path of stability. They are all the more important given the instability in the world economy.
      One of the trigger points for that instability is the crisis in Russia to which the hon. Member for Hereford has so eloquently drawn attention. I assure him, and the House, that—both on behalf of this country and in co-operation with our colleagues in the G7 and the European Union—we will continue to do everything possible to assist the Russian Government to put their country on to the path of economic, political and social stability that its people so badly need.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Nine o'clock.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Infrastructure Project
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the President of the Council when the Ernst and Young report on the Government's millennium infrastructure project will be published. [56673]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The report was published on 10 September, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

WALES

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the Welsh Development Agency concerning the implications for its activities of the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [56156]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Development Agency has regular discussions with the Welsh Office on a variety of issues. The implications of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) has been discussed in that context. The Welsh Office continues to keep the Agency advised of developments on the MAI proposal.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce changes in the map of assisted area status; and if he will make a statement. [56493]

  Mr. Hain
  Announcing changes to the Assisted Areas map is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The new map must be notified to the Commission by 31 March 1999, and will come into force on 1 January 2000.

  Apprentices (Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps his Department proposes to facilitate increases in apprentices on Deeside; and if he will make a statement. [56492]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Office in collaboration with the Welsh TECs actively promotes Modern Apprenticeships to both employers and young people. However, the demand for apprentices on Deeside, as elsewhere, is determined by employers. CELTEC, the local Training and Enterprise Council, works with these employers to meet emerging needs.
  90

  Nuclear Waste
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to call in any application to store nuclear waste at Trecwn in Pembrokeshire. [56692]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  No. However, I am prepared to consider whether an individual application should be called in. As yet, I understand that no application has been made.

TREASURY

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to raise the financial threshold for service industry businesses to register for value-added tax. [56435]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise are currently undertaking a public consultation on future changes to the VAT registration threshold. Decisions on the various proposals will only be taken after careful evaluation of the representations received.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning the impact of the strength of the pound on manufacturing industry. [56845]

  Ms Hewitt
  Treasury Ministers receive many representations from business organisations on a range of issues, including the exchange rate. The Government understand the difficulties caused by sterling's appreciation. The recent easing of the exchange rate should help to relieve some of the concerns of manufacturers.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made to the(a) definition and (b) objectives of the public sector borrowing requirement since its inception; and what are the current objectives. [56659]

  Mr. Byers
  The definition of the public sector used for the public sector net cash requirement (formerly known as the public sector borrowing requirement) has always been consistent with the definition used in the national accounts prepared by the Office for National Statistics.

  No changes have been made to the objectives of the public sector net cash requirement, which are to measure the cash needs of the whole public sector.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Government's Economic and Fiscal Strategy report (Cm 3978, p.37), if it remains Government policy to sell part of National Air Traffic Services during the financial year 1999–2000; and what sale proceeds are forecast. [56689]
  91
  Ms Hewitt
  It is still the Government's intention to introduce a public private partnership for NATS based on a 51 per cent. sale of shares. A consultation paper has been published. The timing of the sale will depend on the legislative timetable. It would not be appropriate to give estimates of proceeds, which are commercially sensitive, before the sale takes place.

  Exports
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the value of the United Kingdom's exports to OECD countries currently in recession as defined by two successive quarters of negative growth, in each of(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [56693]

  Ms Hewitt
  Three OECD countries Japan, South Korea and New Zealand have recently had two successive quarters of negative growth. The value of UK exports of goods to these countries in 1997–98 was estimated at £5,579 million: £4,057 million for Japan; £1,100 million for South Korea, and £422 million for New Zealand. The Treasury does not publish forecasts for the value of trade with individual countries.

  GDP Growth
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what account will be taken of the forecast for EU GDP growth issued by the European Commission on 21 October in his Department's forecasts for UK GDP growth in 1999; and if he will make a statement; [56768]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the European Commission's forecasts of 21 October of the UK and EU rates of GDP growth; and if he will make a statement. [56767]

  Ms Hewitt
  New forecasts for growth will be published on 3 November as part of the Pre-Budget Report. These will take account of developments since the Budget forecast was published in March.

  Unclaimed Assets
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with banks, building societies and insurance companies about the amount of assets held by these organisations on behalf of people whose whereabouts are no longer known. [56944]

  Ms Hewitt
  None.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of money held by financial institutions on behalf of individuals whose whereabouts are presently unknown. [56956]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have no comprehensive data on the amounts involved.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish details of the proposed scheme for employers to pay the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit through the wage packet. [57150]
  92
  Dawn Primarolo
  WFTC and DPTC will replace Family Credit (FC) and Disability Working Allowance (DWA) in October 1999 and will be administered by the Inland Revenue. From that date the Inland Revenue will process applications and pay the 26-week awards direct to all successful applicants. But from April 2000 employers will pay the tax credits to employees through the wage packet unless a couple chose to have them paid direct by the Revenue to the self-employed or non-earning partner.

  The Inland Revenue has been consulting employer representatives on the design of the scheme, with the aim of minimising extra burdens on employers. The main features are as follows:
  The Inland Revenue will notify employers of when to start paying a tax credit, and will give them time to adjust their payroll. The notification will tell the employer how much tax credit to pay and when to stop. In order to preserve the applicant's confidentiality the notification will refer only to 'tax credits'. It will not distinguish between WFTC and DPTC, nor will it list the various elements of the award.
  Once notified when to start payments, the employer will add the amount of the tax credit (calculated using the daily rate supplied by the Revenue) to the employee's net wages for each pay period.
  Employers will continue to pay the tax credits until the end of the 26-week award unless notified by the Inland Revenue to stop paying sooner. A recipient who changes jobs or leaves employment will be responsible for letting the Revenue know of these changes.
  When the employer is not paying the tax credit—at the beginning of an award, or where the employee has left the employer—the Revenue will be responsible for making direct payment to the recipient, thus ensuring that there is no gap in payments.
  Employers will set off the amounts of tax credit they pay against their PAYE and NIC liabilities. Employers whose liabilities are too small to cover the WFTC and DPTC due will be able to apply to the Revenue for funding.
  The Inland Revenue will be providing information and support, both before and after April 2000, to help employers meet their new obligations.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support (Mortgage Interest)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the losses in respect of income support with mortgage interest arising from(a) fraud, (b) claimant error and (c) agency error in each of the last five years; what efforts are being made to reduce these losses; and if he will make a statement. [55218]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Income Support is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Andrew Love, dated 26 October 1998:
  The Secretary for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what estimates he has made of the losses in respect of Income Support (IS) with mortgage interest from (a) fraud, (b) claimant error and (c) agency error in each of the last five years; what efforts are being made to reduce these losses.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Benefits Agency (BA) estimates of the level of fraud within major benefits are informed by the BA's Benefit Review programme.

  93
  However, the IS reviews did not separately identify losses arising from fraud where mortgage interest was included. BA's Quality Support Teams provide estimates of agency error on certain benefits including IS. Estimates relating to claimant error could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Estimates for agency error are enclosed on the attached table.
  The Agency is actively looking at ways of working with mortgage lenders to prevent losses where the benefit includes mortgage interest. The vast majority of IS claimant's eligible housing costs have been paid direct to their mortgage lenders under the Mortgage Interest Direct (MID) arrangements since May 1992.
  The Agency undertook a comprehensive mortgage scrutiny during 1994.The findings of the scrutiny supported the streamlining of the MID scheme. From October 1995 the MID scheme was simplified by introducing a standard interest rate (SIR) which eased the administration of the scheme and removed the reliance on customers for up to date mortgage information.
  BA have introduced a number of measures to tackle fraud and incorrectness across all benefits including the introduction of a mandatory pre-payment check and a review of the poorest performing districts. Other initiatives introduced are enhancements to our computer system (relating to deductions from benefit), automating case reviews, increasing the number of pre-payment checks, funding additional training initiatives, new claim visits and targeted reviews, new checks on identity and new evidence based checks on claim details.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Estimates of Income Support mortgage interest losses due to official error

  £million

  Year

  Official error

  April 1995—March 1996

  92.46

  April 1996—March 1997

  33.27

  April 1997—March 1998

  21.10

  Notes:

  1.This information has been provided by the BA's Quality Support programme of visits, it is provisional and may be subject to change.

  2.This information has been extracted from samples checked by the BA's Quality Support programme to provide national accuracy results in percentage and monetary accuracy terms. These results reflect the accuracy of benefit processing by BA staff, based on the documentation and information available.

  3.BA monetary value of error results between 1995 and 1998 were based on samples of between 30,000 and 60,000 cases and are subject to a margin of error of plus or minus ten per cent.

  4.Extracting data from the sample in respect of one type of error, substantially reduces the statistical validity of the resulting figures. The monetary values quoted for mortgage error give an indication of the scale of the over and underpayments identified in the course of the Quality Support programmes. However, these values should be treated with caution. A substantial checking exercise would be required to provide figures with greater statistical validity.

  5.The information for 1995–96 is based on a twelve month sample period and includes all claimant groups including the unemployed and reflects the introduction of the Standard Interest Rate in October 1995.

  6.The data for 1996–97 are based on a six month period but has been annualised to project a full year. The estimate is based on the latter half of the year following the introduction of Jobseeker's Allowance in October 1996 and does not include information relation to unemployed claimants.

  7.The data for 1997–98 are based on a six month period at the start of the year and annualised to project a full year. This is because the end of year data are still being finalised.

  Information (Benefits)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about his 94
  proposals to improve access to general information about benefits; and if the restoration of the freephone social security line is being considered. [56022]

  Angela Eagle
  Questions on Benefits Agency operational matters are the responsibility of its Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 26 October 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about his proposals to improve access to general information about benefits and if the restoration of the freephone social security line is being considered.
  The Benefits Agency is currently simplifying and refocusing its provision of benefit information. The information will focus on what customers want and need to know to claim benefit. It will give them clear sign posts about where to get more information. This work is being taken forward under the title of "Project Access". The first new leaflets are being introduced at the end of November 1998.
  Our intention for the future would allow customers to obtain accurate information through various media including by post, in person, by telephone, and electronically.
  There are no current plans to reintroduce the national Freeline service which would lack the information links needed to provide the individual, customer-focused advice, which is critical to our vision of an active modern service.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have(a) applied for and (b) been awarded incapacity benefit in each of the last three years. [55935]

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

  Number of claims to and awards of incapacity benefit (IB)

  New claims

  IB awards1

  1 March 1995–29 February 19962

  1,072,456

  535,100

  1 March 1996–28 February 1997

  1,067,919

  495,600

  1 March 1997–28 February 1998

  1,012,827

  455,380

  1 Figures exclude a small number of clerical cases and cases entered onto the system after the extract periods

  2 Includes period, 1 March 1995 to 12 April 1995, before Incapacity Benefit replaced Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit on 13 April 1995

  Sources:
  New claims figures are received from Central Data Unit, these figures are subject to change.
  IB Awards figures are taken from a quarterly 5 per cent. sample of the computer system.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will exempt Huntington's disease sufferers from the benefit integrity project; and if he will make a statement. [55704]

  Mr. Timms
  The question of making further exemptions to the Benefit Integrity Project in cases of Neurological disease, which includes Huntington's disease, was raised at the last meeting of the Disability Benefits Forum on 23 September. We undertook to look at the case for making further amendments and we will be making an announcement in the near future.
  95

  Pensions
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research he has undertaken into the preferred method of payment of state pensions in(a) urban areas and (b) rural areas; and what is his policy on the method of payment of state pensions. [55773]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department has commissioned one study of claimants' preferences with respect to methods of payment. This study is presently under way. The Government remain committed to providing a secure, convenient and cost effective method of payment for all our customers.

  Benefits
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost to public funds of introducing for(a) all new claimants and (b) all claimants, a requirement to look for work for (i) all state benefits and (ii) incapacity benefit; if he will estimate the number of people who (1) would lose and (2) be denied incapacity benefit indicating their average financial loss; and if he will make a statement. [56246]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available.

  Care Costs
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the capital threshold for long-term care cost contributions; and if he will make a statement. [55706]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  A Royal Commission has been established to carry out a fundamental review of the arrangements for providing and financing long-term care. We have no plans to reconsider the thresholds in advance of the report by the Royal Commission, which is expected at the end of the year. Under the current local authority charging rules no account is taken of capital below £10,000. For capital of between £10,000 and £16,000, an income of £1 a week is assumed for each complete £250, or part of £250, held. The capital thresholds which are applied by local authority social services departments in determining an individual's ability to contribute to long-term residential care currently match the thresholds which apply to Income Support for people in residential care. The higher threshold—above which residents qualify for neither income support nor assistance with their fees from the local authority—is currently £16,000.

SCOTLAND

  Water Meters
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to require the Scottish water authorities to(a) ensure that their domestic mechanical water meters are accurate and durable, (b) assess the damage caused by particulate matter in water to their domestic water meters, (c) ensure that the domestic meters which they purchase from manufacturers have been tested using unfiltered water, (d) devise a strategy to reduce meter replacements arising from meter failure, (e) assess the viability of other forms of metering equipment and
  96
  (f) evaluate the effects of increased flow through of layer particulate matter arising from the use of electro-magnetic and solid state meters. [55747]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The installation and replacement of water meters is a matter for the water authorities, who also keep under review any alternative metering devices as they become available. There are provisions covering the accuracy and testing of water meters installed for domestic customers by the Scottish water authorities in section 54 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980, which also provides for customers to challenge the accuracy of meter readings. The Government are currently undertaking public consultations about whether to extend to Scotland the provisions of the Measuring Equipment (Cold-water Meters) Regulations 1988 which apply in England and Wales. We have no other plans to introduce new controls.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the annual running costs for each year since their establishment, of each of the European programme directives or partnerships for the disbursement of European structural funds; and by what means such costs are scrutinised. [56252]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The information set out in the table is based on claims received:

  Expenditure (£)

  Calendar year

  Strathclyde European partnership

  Eastern Scotland European partnership

  Dumfries and Galloway European partnership

  Highlands and Islands partnership programme

  1993

  365,217

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  325,242

  10,000

  91,400

  259,630

  1995

  400,580

  398,000

  155,000

  371,000

  1996

  530,630

  428,000

  171,000

  384,900

  1997

  951,840

  718,353

  190,500

  524,000

  Programme Executive budgets are approved by the respective Boards or Joint Management Boards drawn from, and with responsibility, to the various programme partnerships for the operation of the Programme Executives. The partnerships meet 50 per cent. of the costs.

  Programme Executive funding is also supported at 50 per cent. from technical assistance from the European Structural Funds. The technical assistance application, and by extension, the overall budget is considered and approved by the Programme Monitoring Committee.

  Expenditure and claims for technical assistance are scrutinised in accordance with recognised payment and audit procedures as laid down by the Scottish Office, the National Audit Office and the European Commission.

  Prescription Charges (Cancer Treatment)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the projected cost to the National Health Service in Scotland of extending prescription charge exemptions to include those recovering from cancer. [56165]
  97
  Mr. Galbraith
  It is not possible to identify separately the cost of items prescribed and dispensed for those people recovering from cancer. The NHS prescription form does not record the medical diagnosis for which a drug has been prescribed.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has evaluated into the effectiveness of Tamoxifen as an anti-cancer treatment; and if he will assess the advantages of extending the exemption from prescription charges to include those who are required to use it as part of their continuing treatment. [56163]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Scottish Office Department of Health has not evaluated any research into the effectiveness of Tamoxifen as an anti-cancer treatment.

  The current prescription charge exemption arrangements were reviewed as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. Following the Review, all current prescription charge exemptions will be protected for the rest of the Parliament and existing patient charges will rise by no more than the rate of inflation over the next 3 years.

  Extending the list of conditions giving rise to medical exemption would provide help only to those whose income is about the level for help on low income grounds. In the light of competing demands for increased NHS spending, extending the list would not be making the best use of NHS resources.

HEALTH

  Breast Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the £100 million extra National Lottery funds announced by the Prime Minister to be allocated to breast cancer treatment will be used to increase the drug budget for cancer drugs. [56043]

  Mr. Boateng
  An extra £400 million will be made available to the new opportunities fund (NOF) between now and 2001 to be spent on cancer prevention, treatment and care; green spaces and sustainable communities; and community access to lifelong learning. A consultation paper setting out the new NOF initiatives will be published in the next few weeks before Parliamentary approval of the initiatives is sought. Decisions on funding will be taken once the consultation is completed.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what method of public accountability he intends to introduce to monitor the use of resources by primary health care groups. [56211]

  Mr. Milburn
  As a committee of the health authority, the primary care group board will be accountable through its chair to the chief executive of the health authority.

  Oncologists
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he intends to take to increase the number of oncologists per head of population. [56041]
  98
  Mr. Boateng
  The Specialty Workforce Advisory Group (SWAG) makes recommendations to the Department about the number of higher specialist trainees needed to meet future requirements for consultants in each specialty, including medical oncology and radiotherapy (clinical oncology). Estimates of future requirements are informed by the views of National Health Service management, the medical profession and other interested parties, who are represented on SWAG. Over the past three years SWAG has made recommendations for increases in medical oncology and radiotherapy, which will result in extra numbers of qualified candidates for consultant posts from 1999/2000 onwards.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he proposes to publish the White Paper on Tobacco Control; and if he will make a statement. [56035]

  Ms Jowell
  We expect to publish the White Paper before the House rises for the Christmas recess. It will set out our comprehensive tobacco control strategy including the timescale for implementation of the tobacco advertising and sponsorship directive in United Kingdom law.

  AIDS Support Grant
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the level of AIDS support grant for the next financial year. [56765]

  Ms Jowell
  The level of AIDS Support Grant for the next financial year will be £15.5 million (an increase of almost 12 per cent. on 1998–99) and the planning figures for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are £16 million and £16.5 million respectively.

  Health Improvement Programmes
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the main criteria for the establishment of health improvement programmes; and what progress has been made in the establishment of such programmes. [56652]

  Mr. Milburn
  Health improvement programmes will be the local strategies for improving health and health care. Health authorities have lead responsibility for their development. They will be expected to do this through a fully inclusive process, engaging primary care groups, National Health Service trusts, local authorities, the voluntary sector, local employers and others, users, carers and local communities. Full guidance on the new arrangements has been issued in Health Service Circular 1998/167 Local Authority Circular (98)23: "Health Improvement Programmes: Planning for Better Health and Better Health Care". Copies are available in the Library.

  The first health improvement programmes (HImPs) are to cover the three year period beginning April 1999. They are to be developed through a rolling programme and the first HImPs will need to include plans for their future development.
  99

  Physiotherapy Services (West Sussex)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the end of GP fundholding on the provision of physiotherapy outpatient services for patients in West Sussex. [56642]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: The Government are committed to building on those elements of the general practitioner fundholding scheme that worked and to extending them to the whole community. Where benefits have been achieved for patients the aim will be to maintain and spread these advantages under the arrangements for shifting fundholders' responsibilities to primary care groups (PCGs) and health authorities.

  Whether services, such as physiotherapy, are affordable within the resources available to a PCG will be for the PCG to decide, taking into account equality of opportunity of access to services. The West Sussex Health Authority is concerned to work with its PCGs to offer continuity in services, if at all possible. A first step will be identifying their range and cost. The health authority will then be discussing with each PCG the relative priority they will place on them.

  Overhead Power Lines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the dangers to health from overhead power lines. [56848]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has responded to several representations during this Administration about the possible health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from power lines and the alleged health effects of EMFs generally, including 9 Parliamentary Questions and 8 letters.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many former incapacity benefit recipients have(a) transferred to IS/JSA and (b) entered employment at the end of their claim, in each of the last three years. [55939]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The number of people who actually made a claim to unemployment benefits and the number who were placed into employment, in each of the last three operational years, is shown in the table.

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Total number of new claims taken on behalf of ex-IB claimants

  40,257

  76,551

  109,995

  Total number of job placings of ex-IB claimants

  920

  3,535

  5,323

  Social Fund
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library copies of EU Objective 3 Social Fund application forms used by other European Union member states. [55716]
  100
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Officials in the Department of Education and Employment's European Social Fund Unit have written to each member state to request a copy of their current Objective 3 application form. Copies will be placed in the Library when they are received.

  GNVQ Courses
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to require the publication of GNVQ results and league tables for institutions offering GNVQ courses. [56206]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will publish the Secondary School and College Performance Tables shortly, which will include institutions' results in relevant GNVQs.

  The tables for pupils of compulsory school age will include the Part One GNVQ and Foundation and Intermediate GNVQs combined with GCSEs. The tables for 16–18 year olds will include results for Advanced level GNVQs.

  Reading
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice his Department gives to education authorities on the optimum age at which to commence reading in schools; and what changes there have been in this advice in the last 10 years. [56342]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The National Curriculum has always required reading to be taught from the start of compulsory schooling. The National Literacy Strategy "Framework for teaching" sets out reading objectives for each year, including Reception.

  Sure Start Programme
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff will be employed as outreach workers to visit families under the Sure Start programme; what the cost of the staff will be; and what will be their terms of reference. [56847]

  Ms Hodge
  Outreach will be a key part of Sure Start and will build on existing infrastructures including those in the health and voluntary sectors. Costs will be met from within the Sure Start budget for England of £452 million over the next three years. The Government will be issuing guidance for Sure Start projects in due course. The exact arrangements for outreach work will be for local projects to decide.

  School Standards and Effectiveness Unit
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff are currently employed in the School Standards and Effectiveness Unit; and what is the budgeted cost of publications issued by the unit in the current financial year. [56846]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As of 30 September 1998 there were 137 staff employed in the Standards and Effectiveness Unit (SEU).
  101
  The total budgeted cost of SEU publications in the current financial year is £3.8 million, of which £2 million relates to the implementation of the Literacy and Numeracy Strategies in primary schools.

  National Learning Targets
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to announce new national learning targets. [57038]

  Mr. Mudie
  My noble Friend the Minister for Education and Employment will be announcing new National Learning Targets for England tomorrow. They will cover 16-year-olds, young people post-school, adults and organisations, in addition to the targets for 11-year-olds already announced. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Schools (Hackney)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he has authorised the Chief Executive of OFSTED to make public statements on the future control of Hackney's schools; and if he will make a statement. [56910]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools is free to report on the situation in any school or LEA which OFSTED has inspected.

  It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to make decisions about the use of his powers under the new School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase resources for Hackney's schools and to raise morale among pupils and teachers. [56911]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Hackney currently receives over 40 per cent. more education SSA funding per pupil than the national average. Decisions on resources for individual authorities for 1999–2000 will be announced later in the autumn. At this stage, nothing has been ruled in or out.

  Before the end of the year we intend to publish a Green Paper which will set out our vision for the future of the teaching profession. The paper will detail plans for improving the status and morale of teachers by rewarding good teachers in difficult schools and providing a new structure of promotion opportunities. It will also give details of investment to support improved professional development to build on measures already in hand on training, induction and appraisal. I hope that Hackney teachers will play a full part in the consultation process.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he or his officials have had with the Chief Executive of OFSTED on handing over control of Hackney's schools to a private company; and if he will make a statement. [56909]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No such discussions have taken place.
  102

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Piers
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his policy in respect of the preservation of traditional British seaside resort piers. [55709]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government fully support the preservation of historic seaside piers. Public funding is available from English Heritage (or the equivalent agency in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland) and from the National Heritage Memorial Fund and Heritage Lottery Fund. To date, the National Heritage Memorial Fund has made three awards, totalling £1.2 million, for the restoration of historic piers, and the Heritage Lottery Fund eight awards, totalling £15 million.

  Medieval Villages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he plans next to conduct a survey of deserted medieval villages in England; and if he will make a statement. [56171]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Following an earlier survey of deserted medieval settlements in England, English Heritage has identified about 2,000 such sites as possible candidates for either new or continuing statutory protection. Following further research into these sites, 104 such recommendations have so far been made to my Department and a further 50 recommendations are in preparation. Studies are continuing into the other sites.

  Dance and Drama Training
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the Arts Council report "Fitness for Purpose" by Edward Birk on the provision of dance and drama training; and if he will make a statement. [56413]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: My Department and the Department for Education and Employment are working towards establishing a long term solution to the funding difficulties being experienced by students undertaking vocational studies in dance, drama and stage management. The Arts Council of England's "Fitness for Purpose" report is a helpful contribution to this debate and will inform our consideration of the issues.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Housing Development
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his oral answer of 20 October 1998,Official Report, column 1067, concerning housing development, when he last met members of the housebuilding industry to discuss future housing developments; and if he will make a statement. [56518]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I last met members of the housebuilding industry at the British Construction Industry Awards on 21 October 1998.
  103
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his oral answer of 20 October 1998,Official Report, column 1067, concerning housing development, if he will list the organisations which were present at the meeting on 19 October to which he referred; where the meeting was held; and if he will make a statement. [56519]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The meeting was the launch reception of the London Young Labour Councillor Network held in the Jubilee Room of the House of Commons, where I met representatives of the House-Builders Federation and Laing Homes.

  Right to Roam
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will place in the Library the complete set of responses to his consultation document on the Right to Roam. [56363]

  Mr. Meacher
  Copies of responses to the consultation paper Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales were placed in my Department's Library on 12 October, with the exception of those from respondents who asked that they should not be made available in this way. A list of non-confidential responses has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Housing (South-West)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will meet the delegation of South-West Liberal Democrat Members to discuss housing targets in the region. [55696]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Secretary of State has no plans to meet the delegation of hon. Members and I would refer the hon. Member to the Secretary of State's letter of 5 October to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) concerning our approach to planning for England's housing needs.

  British Rail Property
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which former British Rail sites, since the privatisation of British Rail, have been sold or leased for developments serviced by road haulage. [56343]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not available.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what acreage of unutilised former British Rail land has been allocated to(a) Railtrack and (b) the British Transport Property Board. [56344]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria have been used to divide British Rail land between Railtrack and the British Transport Property Board. [56242]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that when Railtrack was created in 1994 by the previous Government, it was allocated the operational land and those non-operational sites and disused sections of line which stood a realistic 104
  prospect of future railways use; BR only retained sites and sections of line which were not thought at the time to meet that criterion.

  School Transport
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what alternatives to transporting children to and from school by car his Department is actively promoting. [56071]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A wide range of local initiatives to reduce car use on the journey to and from school already exist. My Department is drawing on this work to develop separate guidance on best practice for both local authorities and schools. The School Travel Advisory Group will move forward quickly to raise the profile of school travel issues and identify practical means of influencing behaviour.

  Freight Haulage
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which United Kingdom freight hauliers have informed him of their intention to register their fleets outside the United Kingdom. [56646]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: There is no notification requirement for United Kingdom freight hauliers who intend to register their fleets outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are his Department's estimates of the number of continental European road freight vehicles carrying United Kingdom loads to United Kingdom destinations as a proportion of total road freight. [56648]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: It is estimated that 0.04 per cent. of total road freight activity in the UK is undertaken by European vehicles carrying United Kingdom loads to United Kingdom destinations.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will monitor the effect of increasing the allowed maximum weight of lorries on British roads on the balance between rail and road freight haulage. [56159]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department will continue to monitor domestic freight transport by mode including the balance of freight between road and rail as well as other modes such as water and pipeline. The effect of heavier lorries on rail will be an important part of the review of the case for heavier lorries which we will be asking the Commission for Integrated Transport to undertake.

  Social Housing
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the extent of a reduction in demand for social housing; and if he will publish the sources and nature of the evidence his Department has collated. [56277]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Much of the current research on low demand is small scale and based on a diverse range of definitions and methodologies, including estimates
  105
  extrapolated from a small number of sample case studies. There is, therefore, a range of disparate figures on the scale and distribution of the apparent reduction in demand for social housing. Evidence from 1997 local authority Housing Investment Programme returns to my Department suggests that the incidence of vacancies in social housing is increasing, particularly in the northern regions.

  My Department has recently commissioned Heriot-Watt University to carry out research that will provide robust data on the nature and extent of low demand across all tenures. The research will also identify practical solutions for tackling the complex problems connected with reduced demand. The study will report in late 1999. The research will inform the work of an Action Team set up to tackle the problems of unpopular housing as part of the new national strategy for neighbourhood renewal being brought together by the Social Exclusion Unit.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his Department's press release of 21 October 1998 in respect of genetically modified crops,(a) when the first commercial planting will take place, (b) what specific measures are to accompany any such release to prevent possible cross-contamination and (c) for what length of time the long-term monitoring arrangement for each individual release is planned to continue. [56653]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: The answer is as follows:

  (a) We have reached agreement that there will be no commercial planting of insect-resistant genetically modified crops for 3 years and no commercial planting of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops for at least 1 year in the first instance and only then if we are satisfied that the evidence shows that they would be unlikely to pose a risk either to human health or the environment either directly or indirectly.

  (b) The crops will be grown in compliance with a code of practice being drawn up by the industry body Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC). This includes specific measures to ensure separation between genetically modified and non-genetically modified crops to prevent cross-pollination. The exact distances will be determined on a crop by crop basis, but based on current protocols for production of certified seed.

  (c) The details of the long term monitoring of the farm-scale plantings to be undertaken in 1999 have yet to be agreed with English Nature and the other conservation interests. We will review the results at the end of the first year. However, I would expect monitoring to continue for about 3 years.

  Investment
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the comparative levels of investment in(a) roads and (b) railways in each member state of the European Union in the last year for which figures are available. [56759]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  1995 data published by European Conference of Ministers of Transport are given in the table.106

  1995 investment expenditure in million ecus

  Member state

  Roads

  Railways

  Austria

  477

  475

  Belgium

  965

  699

  Denmark

  335

  227

  Finland

  772

  235

  France

  9,088

  1,539

  Germany

  13,924

  5,924

  Greece

  516

  —

  Ireland

  347

  35.9

  Italy (1993)

  6,400

  1,775

  Luxembourg (1994)

  139

  18

  Netherlands

  1,565

  504

  Portugal

  654

  200

  Spain

  4,254

  763

  Sweden

  1,071

  1,067

  Great Britain

  5,314

  1,108

  Source:

  ECMT 'investment in Transport Infrastructure in the ECMT member countries' Working document No. 1

  Drug Driving
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportions of drivers were found to have used(a) heroin, (b) cannabis and (c) alcohol to the breathalyser limit in the tests undertaken on drug driving in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [56505]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Substances found in drivers, by proportion, are:(a) opiates—4.4 per cent. (from existing experience approximately one-third of these can be expected to have used heroin); (b) cannabis— 12.5 per cent.; (c) alcohol below the legal limit— 8.8 per cent.

  This information has been taken from the Department's ongoing survey into the incidence of drugs found in the bodies of road accident fatalities (drivers, riders, passengers, cyclists, pedestrians). In the survey, some drugs are classified by group only.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department intends to publish proposals for changes to the law relating to compulsory purchase; and if his proposals will include a wider power for local authorities to purchase empty homes. [56701]

  Mr. Raynsford
  An interim report of the fundamental review of compulsory purchase and compensation will be submitted at the end of the year. This will set out recommendations as to changes which can be made in the short term to deliver increased speed, efficiency and fairness to the operation of the system, as well as outlining longer term options for changes to primary legislation. It is too early to predict what recommendations might be forthcoming, although I can confirm that the remit for the review embraces the range of local authorities' compulsory purchase powers, including those relating to housing.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate
  107
  his Department has made of the increase in continental European HGVs on United Kingdom roads since the abolition of cabotage rules on 1 July. [56649]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: Estimates of the number of European HGVs on United Kingdom roads are given in Table 2 of 'Road Goods Vehicles Travelling to Mainland Europe', published by the Department, and available in the Library. Figures are not yet available for the period since 1 July. We expect little, if any, change since cabotage accounts for only 0.04 per cent. of total UK road freight activity.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made for the costs for a 40-tonne truck and trailer operating in each EU country represented by(a) VED rates, (b) fuel duty and (c) other operating charges. [56645]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: My Department does not have the necessary information on these factors in all Member States to make such a comparison.

  Any meaningful comparison of the costs of operating a 40 tonne, 5-axle, articulated lorry in all Member States would need to include a wide range of factors. As well as Vehicle Excise Duty, fuel duty and their equivalents, it would need to include tolls, road user charges and normal business and employment taxes and charges. Other important variables include fuel efficiency (some hauliers are nearly twice as fuel-efficient as others), distances travelled, loading factors, and the overheads of the haulier.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the number of jobs lost in the United Kingdom road freight haulage business since May 1997. [56647]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: I regret that information for the period in question is not yet available. The latest figures, which are collected in the annual Employment Survey, relate to 1996. Statistics for 1997 will be available later this year.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's estimate of the increase in the cost to United Kingdom HGV operators of each class of vehicle in respect of(a) fuel duty, (b) vehicle licence duty and (c) other environmental charges since the Budget. [56651]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: Since the Budget, UK HGV operators have incurred increases in fuel duty of 6 per cent. above the rate of inflation, for all classes of vehicle. The last Budget did not change VED rates for HGVs, other than to introduce a £500 rebate for vehicles meeting certain emission standards, to be available from January 1999. No other relevant environmental charges were introduced in the Budget.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the proportion of United Kingdom road freight travelling exclusively on 108
  United Kingdom roads which is being commissioned by United Kingdom companies using foreign HGV operators. [56650]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: The information is not available.

  A12 (Hatfield Peverel Junction)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the improvement scheme for the junction to the A12 at Hatfield Peverel to be carried out. [56441]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. John Whittingdale, dated 27 October 1998:
  The Transport Minister, Glenda Jackson, has asked the Chief Executive to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the A12 Hatfield Peverel Junction. I am replying in Lawrie Haynes' absence.
  At this early stage it is not possible to give you an indication of when work could start. We have just commissioned consultants to look at ways of improving the A12 between Hatfield Peverel and Witham Link Road, including the A12 Hatfield Peverel junction. That work will take about eighteen months to complete. Progress thereafter will depend on the outcome of any statutory procedures which might be necessary, we will take the proposals forward as quickly as practicable. I shall ensure that you are kept informed of developments.

  Foxhounds
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many foxhounds he estimates were killed or injured on railway tracks in England and Wales in each of the last five years. [56268]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No official records are kept, but based on the figures provided by the British Transport Police the number for foxhounds killed or injured on the railways in England and Wales are:

  Year

  Foxhounds killed or injured

  1998 (to date)

  18

  1997

  14

  1996

  22

  1995

  4

  1994

  18

  Road Safety
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives he is taking to improve road safety in England. [56548]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are taking a number of initiatives to improve road safety. The Integrated Transport White Paper announced that there will be new casualty reduction targets for the year 2010, which will be underpinned by a road safety strategy. The strategy will set out a range of measures for meeting the targets. In addition, my noble Friend the Minister for
  109
  Roads and Road Safety last week announced the start of a comprehensive review of speed policy, promised in the White Paper.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to establish the value of National Air Traffic Services Ltd. prior to privatisation. [56690]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The final sale route of NATS depends crucially on the details of the public private partnership, on which we are consulting at the moment. It would not be appropriate to give an estimate of the value of the company, which is commercially sensitive, before the sale takes place.

  Rail Fares
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he first evaluated the research by OPRAF published on 22 October concerning trends in fare levels for rail passengers. [56691]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend received briefing on this research earlier in October.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he proposes to undertake a periodic review of the Highways Agency. [57039]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My noble Friend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety has announced today that we are to commence a periodic review of the Highways Agency. The performance of the Agency since its launch will be evaluated and a review of the options for the best management of its functions will be undertaken. It is also an appropriate moment for a review, as we set the Agency a new aim and objectives this Summer, reflecting this Government's new vision for integrated transport in relation to the English trunk road network. The Review will build on the work done during the Integrated Transport and Roads Reviews. We hope to announce the results of the review next Spring.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government will respond to the reports by the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development on(a) Getting the Best out of Indicators and (b) Economic Regulators. [57286]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have today published responses to these two reports by the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development.

  "Getting the Best out of Indicators" has made a valuable contribution to the Government's development of a new set of Indicators as the report focused on strategic issues relating to their use and development and gave particular regard to policy and communication. The new Government indicators will, for the first time, include economic and social aspects of sustainable development together with a small group of headline Indicators. The
  110
  full set of Indicators will be launched early in the new year together with the revised UK Sustainable Development Strategy.

  The report on Economic Regulators was considered very carefully in light of the consultation for "A Fair Deal for Consumers" published by DTI in March. We are pleased to have been able to respond positively to many of the Round Table's recommendations, for instance setting up a framework for regulation and issuing statutory guidance on the social and environment objectives.

  The Government value the work of the Round Table in helping to take forward the Sustainable Development agenda and I wish to express my gratitude to Sir Richard Southwood and the Round Table for their continued work.

  I am placing copies of both the responses in the Library.

  Road Tax
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of plans to reduce road tax for vehicles with engines of 1600 cc or less. [56036]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  In his Budget speech, on 17 March 1998, Official Report, columns 1097–112, the Chancellor announced his intention of introducing a fairer and more environmentally sensitive system of vehicle excise duty. A consultation document setting out the options for reform will be published shortly. Details of the new VED scheme will be determined as a result of that consultation.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Masters of Foxhounds
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) how many masters of foxhounds have been prosecuted for criminal damage caused by packs of foxhounds in each of the last five years; how many such prosecutions were successful; and what penalties were imposed; [56266]

  (2) how many prosecutions have been brought by the CPS against masters of foxhounds for hunt trespass on railway land in each of the last five years; how many prosecutions were successful; and what penalties were imposed. [56269]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records in respect of the number of masters of foxhounds prosecuted for criminal offences. The information is held on individual case files and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

DEFENCE

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been(a) made and (b) proposed to tighten the regulations on chemical and biological weapons since May 1997. [55048]
  111
  Mr. George Robertson
  The United Kingdom is a State Party to both the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). These Conventions prohibit, respectively, biological and chemical weapons. They are applied in the UK by the Biological Weapons Act 1974 and the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. The 1997 Annual Report on the operation of the Chemical Weapons Act was laid before Parliament in February 1998.

  The White Paper on Strategic Export Controls, presented to Parliament by the then President of the Board of Trade on 1 July 1998, includes proposals to strengthen the Chemical Weapons Act by making it an offence
  "to aid, abet, counsel or procure a foreigner overseas to develop, produce or use a chemical weapon".

  The White Paper also proposes that prohibitions in relation to biological weapons should be brought into line with the strengthened Chemical Weapons Act.

  The UK is playing an active role in the current negotiations in Geneva on measures to strengthen the BTWC, as set out in paragraph 37–38 of Supporting Essay 5 of the Strategic Defence Review. Implementation in the UK of these measures when agreed is likely in due course to require further domestic legislation. The content of that legislation will depend on the content of the agreements reached.

  Air Travel Costs
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what fees were charged to Bath Travel for the use of the facilities at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at Boscombe Down for a commercial flight by Concorde in August; and if those fees have been paid. [55469]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 19 October 1998]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Robert Key, dated 27 October 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about fees charged to Bath Travel for the use of facilities at DERA's airfield at Boscombe Down for a commercial flight by Concorde in August of this year.
  The flight, which took place on 12 August, was organised by Bath Travel, a local travel agency, acting on behalf of the tour operator, Cunard Line Ltd.
  Bath Travel made no use of DERA facilities at Boscombe Down, having carried out passenger reception and baggage check prior to the arrival of the passengers at the airfield and consequently no charges were levied.
  As the tour operator, Cunard Line Ltd. were charged £3,482.18 inclusive of VAT for the airfield services relating to the Concorde flight. The level of charging was determined in accordance with standard Ministry of Defence policy guidance. An invoice was raised on 21 August and payment is awaited.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Royal Marines
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Marines personnel have left the service on health grounds in each of the last five years. [55809]
  112
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF Pilots
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which RAF squadrons currently have a shortage of trained pilots; and what is the total extent of the shortfalls. [55816]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As at 1 September 1998, 78 established pilot posts on RAF operational squadrons were vacant, out of a total establishment of 957. The following squadrons were affected: nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 41, 43, 47, 51, 54, 70, 72, 78, 101, 111, 120, 202, 206, 216, 230, 617.

  Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the World Court statement of 8 July 1996 relating to the obligation to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament under effective international control.[56027]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We have consistently made clear that we welcome the International Court of Justice's recognition of the importance of the obligations of all States under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the Nuclear Weapon States' obligations on nuclear disarmament.

  Star Wars
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what involvement Britain has in the continuing US SDI-star wars programme.[55788]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Britain's involvement in the US SDI-star wars programme (now known as Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD)) consists of research into BMD technologies where there is a common interest.

  Aircraft Tyres
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum recommended usage for tyres for each type of RAF aircraft; and what was the(a) mean, (b) median and (c) maximum recorded usage in each of the last three years. [56059]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No maximum recommended usage is prescribed for RAF aircraft tyres. Aircraft tyres are inspected to assess wear and damage after each flight. If the wear or damage exceeds the limits set by the tyre manufacturer, then the tyre is replaced. Detailed information about the levels of tyre usage is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual requirement for tyres for each type of RAF aircraft; and what is the total RAF requirement for aircraft tyres. [56052]
  113
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The RAF's total estimated annual requirement for tyres, by aircraft type, is recorded in the table.

  Aircraft

  Number of tyres

  BAe 146

  35

  Hercules

  185

  Nimrod

  343

  Harrier

  4,561

  Tornado

  4,049

  Puma

  92

  Sentry

  60

  Wessex

  29

  Canberra

  23

  Dominie/HS125

  113

  VC10

  279

  Bulldog

  155

  Hawk

  728

  Jaguar

  500

  Tucano

  245

  Tristar

  185

  Chinook

  121

  Jetstream

  167

  Sea King

  255

  Total

  12,125

  Note:

  Figures include new and retreaded tyres

  The number of tyres used by each aircraft type each year is not recorded centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Armed Forces Personnel (Marital Breakdown)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into a correlation between marital breakdown among armed forces personnel and the undertaking of extended spells of overseas duty. [55866]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: To the best of my knowledge my Department has not commissioned or evaluated any specific research of this nature.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of known incidences of marital breakdown in the armed forces(a) in total and (b) relative to the rate in the population as a whole in each of the last five years. [55864]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: My Department does not hold statistics of the nature requested.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are in place to ensure that the armed forces provide counselling and support for personnel involved in marital breakdown. [55865]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: The Armed Forces attach great importance to the welfare of their people.

  All three Services provide specialist welfare staff, in the UK and overseas, who offer Service personnel counselling and support on a wide range of social issues, including marital breakdown. The Royal Navy and the Army have recently set up confidential support telephone helplines for Service personnel and their dependants for
  114
  all welfare related issues, whilst the Royal Air Force has a similar facility for personnel which deals with cases of racial or sexual harassment.

  As part of the overall welfare provision, the Armed Forces also provide personnel and their families with advice on coping with separation while personnel are away from home on duty, and managing homecomings.

  The full range of healthcare and social services provided by central and local government in the U.K., are available to the Service community; the Services seek to replicate these facilities overseas wherever practicable.

  Within the U.K., Service families will be subject to the requirements of the Family Law Act 1996 when it comes into effect next year. Responsibility for implementation of this rests with the Lord Chancellor's Department. Overseas, where MOD voluntarily aims to replicate U.K. practice where possible, the Armed Forces are actively examining how the Act can be implemented in light of circumstances and conditions of service.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Terrorist Suspects (Interviews)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to make available audio-recording facilities for interviews with persons arrested under the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [55994]

  Mr. Straw
  A number of steps have recently been taken with regard to the tape recording of interviews with terrorist suspects. These would therefore apply in circumstances where a suspect was being questioned in connection with the offence of being a member of a specified and proscribed organisation, as set out in section 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (PTA) or section 30 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, as amended by sections 1 and 2 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 respectively.

  In Scotland, interviews with terrorist suspects have not thus far generally been audio recorded. However, in the context of the passage of the 1998 Act, it was decided that such interviews should be tape recorded in future. Police forces in Scotland are currently considering what arrangements need to be put in place to accommodate this change in practice.

  In Northern Ireland, section 53A of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, as inserted by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998, makes statutory provision for police interviews with terrorist suspects to be audio recorded. Section 53A requires a draft Code of Practice to be drawn up, put out for consultation and brought into effect by Orders subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The draft Code of Practice was published yesterday for public consultation.

  In England and Wales, the police already audio record, on a voluntary basis, interviews with those arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
  115
  It is envisaged that interviews with suspects arrested in connection with the conspiracy provisions in sections 5–7 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, but in respect of non terrorist-related offences, would be dealt with under the usual arrangements in each jurisdiction for police interviews of non-terrorist suspects. As such, where in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the suspect is being interviewed in connection with an indictable offence (including an offence triable either way), or in Scotland an imprisonable offence, interviews would be audio recorded.

  The forthcoming consultation paper on permanent United Kingdom wide counter-terrorist legislation will look at the audio recording of interviews with terrorist suspects in the context of a wider review of detention arrangements.

  Metropolitan Police
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) recruitments to, (b) retirements from, (c) resignations from and (d) applications to join the Metropolitan Police there were in each month from January to October. [56241]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police provided the information requested, as follows:

  1998

  (a) Recruits

  (b) Retirements

  (c) Resignations

  (d) Applications to join

  January

  98

  98

  19

  438

  February

  75

  68

  25

  623

  March

  3

  123

  18

  757

  April

  1

  67

  31

  315

  May

  159

  94

  30

  269

  June

  160

  80

  35

  768

  July

  186

  126

  28

  704

  August

  184

  127

  32

  554

  September to 22 October

  176

  107

  27

  411

  inclusive

  —

  62

  11

  319

  Total

  1,042

  952

  256

  5,158

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his most recent projection of the number of staff to be employed in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each of the next four years; [56186]

  (2) what is his most recent projection of the number of immigration officers in each of the next four years. [56187]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Detailed plans, including staffing projections, for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have still to be finalised.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on 1 May 1997; and how many were employed at the most recent available date for which figures are available. [56185]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Figures for May 1997 are not readily available, but on 1 April 1997 the total number of staff employed in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate was 5,687. The current number is 5,615.
  116
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many computer systems have been installed in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate since 1 May 1997 which were not planned for on 1 May 1997; and how many have been planned for the directorate since 1 May 1997. [56169]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate's (IND) Information Technology (IT) needs over the next few years will be met mainly through the Casework Programme System. We also announced in the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum" that we would undertake a study of options for using IT to support the integration of pre-entry, on-entry and enforcement activity and to help modernise the labour intensive process of passenger clearance.

  In addition, the following 11 major systems have been both planned and installed in IND since 1 May 1997:

  File Tracking System Upgrade

  E-mail External Links and enhancements

  Home Office Directory 2

  Operational Planning and Support Service

  Corporate Desktop

  Angel Square Presenting Officer Unit Desktop Support

  Strategy and Legislation Team Desktop Support

  Asylum and Appeals Policy Desktop Support

  Asylum Support Team Desktop Support

  Carriers' Liability Replacement

  Immigration Service Enforcement Forgery System

  Internet Information Services.

  The following 10 major systems have been planned in the IND since 1 May 1997, but are yet to be fully implemented:

  Building and Accommodation Services Help Desk

  Personnel Management Training Support System

  INDIS—Intelligence Section Database

  Personnel Open Learning System

  Delmis—Detention Management Database

  Detention Accounts Replacement

  POISE Desktop in IND (Corporate Desktop Applications including Internet)

  IT2000 in IND (Corporate Desktop and Business Changes for the new Millennium)

  Applix Help Desk—IT Service Help Desk

  Asylum Fingerprinting Bureau Replacement.

  214 individual applications and small system implementations have been planned and installed since 1 May 1997; 120 have been planned since 1 May 1997 but are yet to be implemented.

  Asylum Casework
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much investment in the determination of asylum casework has been made since 1 May 1997; and how much new investment has been planned since 1 May 1997. [56167]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The estimated cost to the Home Office of processing asylum applications, excluding most overheads in 1997–98, was about £14 million. In 1998–99, up to £15 million is available.
  117
  We announced in the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—a Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum" that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate spending limits will increase by £120 million over three years from April 1999. One of the key objectives of this investment is to speed up the handling of asylum applications. By increasing the number of asylum cases decided to 59,000 in 1999–2000, 65,000 in 2000–01, and 65,000 in 20001–02 the Government aim is (on current intake forecasts) that, by April 2001, the backlog will be cleared and decision times will be two months or less.

  Extradition (Spain)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests the United Kingdom has received from Spain for the extradition of persons to Spain in each of the last five years; and how many have been(a) granted and (b) refused. [56254]

  Mr. Straw
  The information is given in the table.

  Year

  Number of requests sought by Spain

  Requests granted

  Requests refused

  1993

  7

  1

  2

  1994

  11

  —

  2

  1995

  8

  2

  —

  1996

  6

  —

  1

  1997

  6

  —

  —

  Total

  38

  3

  5

  Note:

  Of the 30 requests unaccounted for:

  7 were withdrawn;

  23 are outstanding

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests by the United Kingdom for the extradition of persons from Spain are currently outstanding. [56253]

  Mr. Straw
  The number of extradition requests to Spain outstanding is 25.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests by the UK for the extradition of persons from Spain have been(a) granted and (b) declined in each of the last five years. [56274]

  Mr. Straw
  The information is given in the table.

  Year

  Requests by United Kingdom

  Requests granted

  Requests refused

  1993

  7

  4

  —

  1994

  13

  9

  1

  1995

  15

  6

  —

  1996

  17

  8

  1

  1997

  8

  2

  —

  Total

  60

  29

  2

  Of the 29 requests unaccounted for:

  1 fugitive was discharged by Spanish courts;

  1 fugitive returned voluntarily;

  14 requests were withdrawn by the United Kingdom; and

  13 remain outstanding.

  118

  Policing
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the targeted policing of areas; and if he will publish it. [56181]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office has carried out many studies of various aspects of targeted policing. Relevant studies carried out in the last three years are:

  Combating burglary: an evaluation of three strategies (Operation Bumblebee)—published 1995.

  Policing problem housing estates—published 1996.

  Problem Oriented Policing: Brit Pop—published 1996.

  Tackling local drug markets—published 1997.

  Biting back: reducing repeat victimisation in Huddersfield— published 1997.

  Tackling street robbery: an evaluation of Operation Eagle Eye— published 1998.

  Most recently, we launched "Brit-Pop II: Problem Oriented Policing in practice" at the first United Kingdom National Problem Oriented Policing conference, attended by many police forces, local authorities and representatives of other organisations.

  Current work—all due for publication in 1999—is set out as follows:

  Reducing domestic violence in Killingbeck.

  Solving residential burglary—targeting in-progress burglaries.

  Preventing repeat burglary in Cambridge.

  Proactive policing on Merseyside.

  Policing anti-social behaviour.

  Evaluation of crackdown and consolidation strategy in Boggart Hill.

  Evaluation of burglary reduction in Middlesborough.

  Market reduction initiative against theft in the Medway towns.

  Drug markets and street prostitution.

  Situational approaches to policing drug markets.

  Reducing repeat bank robbery.

  Illegal parking in disabled bays.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the letter of 24 August 1998 from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), if the 20 people of Albanian origin who were located in Hounslow after entering the country clandestinely remain in the United Kingdom. [56256]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Shortly after the incident on 3 July, a group of 22 ethnic Albanians from the Kosovo region of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia reported to Lunar House in Croydon, saying they had been directed there by the Hounslow police. I believe the two groups are one and the same. They applied for asylum and I understand that their applications are awaiting consideration.
  119
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employers have been(a) investigated, (b) charged, (c) prosecuted and (d) convicted under section 8(1) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, to the latest convenient date. [56464]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To date, the approach of the Immigration Service towards the enforcement of section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 has been that where, in the course of normal operational activity, an employer is found to have breached section 8, they will be advised of its provisions and issued with a warning letter. Among other things, this warns them that, if they continue to offend, consideration will be given to prosecution. There is no central record of the number of such letters which have been issued: and there have been no prosecutions to date.

  This will continue to be our normal approach. However, as we made clear in the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum", where there is evidence of organised racketeering and the exploitation of vulnerable groups of overseas workers, we will encourage the early referral of the case to the prosecuting authorities.

  Handguns
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences involving(a) airguns, (b) handguns and (c) shotguns were committed in the period (i) 12 months prior to the imposition of the ban on the ownership of handguns and (ii) 12 months following the imposition of the ban. [56175]

  Mr. Michael
  The readily available information relates to the period nine months before and nine months after the prohibition of the larger calibre handguns (those in excess of. 22 calibre) on 1 July 1997. (All handguns were prohibited from 1 February 1998.)

  543 notifiable offences were recorded by the police in which shotguns were reported to have been used in the period 1 October 1996 to 30 June 1997, and 420 in the period 1 July 1997 to 31 March 1998.

  The figures for handguns were 2,200 and 1,951 respectively.

  Similar information is not available centrally for air weapon offences, as only annual returns are made by police forces.

  Prisoners (Drug Prescriptions)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what levels of dose of(a) Largactil, (b) chloral hydrate, (c) tranquillisers and (d) other neuroleptic drugs are given to women prisoners on (a) admission to prison and (b) discharge from prison. [56056]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The dose of medication required in any particular case is a matter for the responsible prison doctor to decide in the light of 120
  the diagnosis, the assessed clinical needs of the patient and the guidance provided by the British National Formulary.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recommendations are laid down by his Department for the prescribing of(a) Largactil, (b) tranquillisers, (c) chloral hydrate and (d) neuroleptic drugs to prisoners. [56054]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Prison Service Health Care Standard 9 provides general guidance about prescribing practices, which must comply with legal requirements and conform to relevant professional codes. In prescribing particular drugs, prison doctors would be guided by the assessed clinical need and the information provided by the British National Formulary.

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the disturbance by prisoners in HMP Holloway on 13 August; and what action he is taking to avoid a re-occurrence. [56055]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There has been a series of incidents at Holloway prison in recent months which were connected to the non-issue of medication to prisoners. Clearly, there are concerns about the failure to provide medication. As a result, the governor has instituted an inquiry which will be conducted by the deputy governor, with the assistance of a senior nursing adviser from Prison Service headquarters. This inquiry commenced today.

  Emma Humphries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what drugs were prescribed for the late Emma Humphries during her years in prison; and for what periods they were prescribed. [56053]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Medical information about individual prisoners is confidential and rights of access are given only to those eligible under the provisions of the Access to Health Records Act 1990. It would not therefore be appropriate to publish the information sought.

  Deportations
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners currently in the United Kingdom are expected to be deported on completion of their prison sentence; and how many of these had deportation orders added to their sentence without the recommendation of a court. [56063]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Reliable information on those persons currently serving a prison sentence who may be liable to, or are subject to, deportation action can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The available information, relating to persons recommended for deportation by a court, and to persons issued with notices of intention to deport on grounds conducive to the public good following conviction for a criminal offence, is given in the table.

  121

  Deportation recommended by a court1 or on grounds conducive to the public good2 following conviction for a criminal offence,1994–19983

  Number of persons

  1994

  1995

  1996

  19974

  19984,5

  Court recommendations made1

  350

  390

  370

  360

  170

  Notices of intention to deport—on grounds conducive to the public good following a criminal conviction2

  120

  80

  120

  90

  50

  1 Under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971

  2 Under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971

  3 Data are rounded

  4 1997 and 1998 data are provisional

  5 1998 data are for 1 January to 30 June only

  Essex Police Authority
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much additional finance will be allocated to the Essex Police Authority when it becomes responsible for areas of the county currently served by the Metropolitan Police. [56151]

  Mr. Michael
  The change to the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District will result in a re-allocation of grant between Essex Police and the Metropolitan Police from 2000–01, but it is too early to give an estimate of the amounts involved. I discussed this point with the outer London Metropolitan Police Group last week. There are complex issues of detail arising from the transfer and my officials will be discussing these issues carefully with both the Metropolitan Police and the relevant county forces during the coming months.

  Police grant is allocated according to a formula which reflects the relative policing needs of different areas. The formula is built up from a number of components. We are considering the implications of the changes to the boundaries for the distribution of police grant under the formula.

  Immigration
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases involving organised immigration racketeering his Department has referred for prosecution in each year since 1990; and with what results. [56465]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration Service and the police work closely together to investigate cases of suspected immigration racketeering. However, it is for the police to decide whether or not to refer a case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and for the CPS to decide whether or not a prosecution should be brought.

  Under Section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, it is an offence to secure or facilitate the entry of illegal entrants to the United Kingdom. The table shows the numbers of prosecutions and convictions in England and Wales under this section since 1990.
  122

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrate's courts and convicted at all courts for offences1 under Section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 as amended2,1990–19973 England and Wales

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1990

  46

  32

  1991

  73

  47

  1992

  63

  56

  1993

  33

  28

  1994

  124

  38

  1995

  175

  111

  1996

  153

  123

  19971

  181

  130

  1 Principal immigration offence

  2 As added by Section 5 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996

  3 Provisional

  City Status
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the next award of city status will be made. [57155]

  Mr. Straw
  Her Majesty has expressed the intention of marking both the Millennium and the 50th Anniversary of Her Accession to the Throne by grants of city status. Towns which have expressed an interest in this honour will be contacted in due course and invited to submit formal applications.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his engagements and the engagements of his ministerial team on Wednesday 21 October. [56849]

  Mr. Straw
  I had two meetings in the Home Office in the morning and then went to the House for three more meetings and to attend Prime Minister's Questions. I remained in the House for the Report and Third Reading of the Human Rights Bill.

  The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), held a number of meetings in the Home Office, spoke at a Crime and Disorder seminar and at a Foreign Press Association Conference on Youth Crime, and was with me during one of my meetings in the House.
  123
  The Minister of State, my noble Friend Lord Williams, had meetings in the Welsh Office, the Home Office, Millbank, the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

  The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), joined me for meetings on the Human Rights Bill and attended the report and third reading in the House. He also had a hospital appointment in preparation for an official visit to Africa next week.

  The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), spent the day in Sheffield visiting the Fire Service.

  The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), held meetings in the Home Office for most of the day, and joined me for one of my meetings in the House.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he received regarding Augusto Pinochet prior to his arrival in the United Kingdom for his current visit; and when he received such representations. [56234]

  Mr. Straw
  I received no such representations.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests his Department received for Augusto Pinochet to be interviewed; when he received such requests; and what factors he will take into account in responding to such requests. [56263]

  Mr. Straw
  Requests made by judicial and law enforcement authorities overseas for persons in the United Kingdom to be interviewed on a voluntary basis in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings are made through the United Kingdom Central Bureau of Interpol (Interpol London) at the National Criminal Intelligence Service and executed directly by the police or other law enforcement agencies. Where such requests are made directly to the Home Office they are referred to the police to execute.

  The 5th Central Magistrate's Court in Madrid contacted the Metropolitan Police via Interpol on 14 October.

  Requests made by courts overseas for statements to be made on oath or to be conducted before a judicial authority in England and Wales are made directly or indirectly to the Home Office. The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, nominate a court in England and Wales under section 4 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 to receive such of the evidence requested as the court considers appropriate for the purpose of executing the request.

  On 19 October, Interpol London received a request for Augusto Pinochet to make a statement. The request was made under the 1959 European Convention for Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, for which the Home Secretary is the designated United Kingdom Central Authority.

  As the Secretary of State I will consider whether the request is for evidence to be taken before a court in England and Wales and one for which the exercise of his powers under section 4 of the 1990 Act would be
  124
  appropriate. If the Secretary of State considers the request is not one for which the nomination of the court would be appropriate, or the requesting authority clarifies that a voluntary statement would be sufficient for its purpose, the request will be passed to the Metropolitan Police to execute.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times Augusto Pinochet visited the United Kingdom since 1 May 1997, prior to his present visit; and when he was notified of each such visit. [56237]

  Mr. Straw
  In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 22 October 1998,Official Report, column 1206 about visits made by Senator Pinochet to the United Kingdom in the last five years, I explained that I understood that there had been five such visits, including the current only. I set out the dates on which I understood he had made the other four visits as: February and June 1994; October 1995; and October 1996. In answering the question, I took account of all the information available within my Department at the time.

  I regret that it is now clear that, although my answer properly reflected my—and my Department's— understanding of Senator Pinochet's visits to the United Kingdom during the period in question, it did not take account of one further visit made by Senator Pinochet in the period since 1 May 1997, which had not been brought to the attention of the Home Office. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to clarify the position for the benefit of the House.

  I can confirm that Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials have, since my answer, informed officials in the Home Office that, in addition to those visits made prior to 1 May 1997 of which the Home Office had been made aware, Senator Pinochet had also visited the United Kingdom in September 1997. There is, however, no Home Office record of that visit. A landing card should have been completed, as for any other visit, but these are not retained by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in the case of routine visits.

  Had I been aware of this visit I would, of course, have included a reference to it in my reply to the earlier question.

  I have written to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North to express my regret for this inaccuracy. A copy of my letter has been place in the Library.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made concerning Augusto Pinochet; and when he made them. [56271]

  Mr. Straw
  I have made no such representations.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he was notified of the intention of Augusto Pinochet to travel to the United Kingdom to make his current visit. [56236]

  Mr. Straw
  Neither I nor my Department was notified in advance of Senator Pinochet's intention to travel to the United Kingdom. As a Chilean national, Senator Pinochet does not require a visa to visit the United Kingdom.
  125
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take in respect of the proposed extradition of Augusto Pinochet. [56265]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), on 22 October 1998,Official Report, column 1205.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he received from the Spanish authorities on the possible issue of a warrant for the arrest of Augusto Pinochet prior to the issue of such a warrant; and when. [56853]

  Mr. Straw
  I received no such representations.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he was informed of Augusto Pinochet's planned date of departure from the United Kingdom on his most recent visit; and if he passed that information to(a) the authorities of another country and (b) another body. [56854]

  Mr. Straw
  I was not informed of Senator Pinochet's planned date of departure from the United Kingdom on his most recent visit.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the public statements made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concerning the arrest of General Pinochet in London represent Government policy. [56694]

  Date

  The Home Secretary met:

  20 June 1997

  John Howard, Australian Prime Minister

  24 June 1997

  The Hon. Jan Wade MP, Victoria State Attorney General

  11 September 1997

  Bangladeshi Foreign Minister

  25 September 1997

  Luxembourg Minister of Justice

  3 November 1997

  Mauritius Prime Minister

  1 December 1997

  Jose Maria Gil-Robles, President of European Parliament

  8 December 1997

  Frank Jensen, Danish Minister of Justice

  18 December 1997

  Georges Romeos, Greek Public Order (Security) Minister

  20 January 1998

  Istrvan Nikolits, Hungarian Security Minister

  4 March 1998

  Gustav Krajci, Slovak Interior Minister

  7 April 1998

  Mme Guigou, French Minister of Justice

  7 April 1998

  Canadian Minister, Andy Scott

  11 May 1998

  Major Rafiqul Islam, Bangladeshi Minister for Home Affairs

  11 June 1998

  Wong Kan Seng, Singaporean Minister for Home Affairs

  18 June 1998

  Russian Interior Minister, Sergei Stepashin

  17 September 1998

  Bahrain Minister of the Interior

  14 October 1998

  President Zedillo, Mexico

  20 October 1998

  Jan Kavan, Czech Foreign Minister

  Alun Michael met

  3 June 1997

  Dr. Nsinela, South African Minister of Justice

  13 August 1997

  Mr. Foss, The Attorney General, Australia

  7 April 1998

  Mme Guigou, French Minister of Justice

  16 June 1998

  Nelson Mandela

  10 July 1998

  Frank Fahy, Irish Minister for Health

  24 August 1998

  Paul Varul, Estonian Justice Minister

  126
  Mr. Straw
  The arrest of Senator Pinochet is not a matter of Government policy. The decision to issue a provisional warrant is for the Bow Street Magistrate, under section 8(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989, in response to a request from an extradition partner.

  Foreign Visitors
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions he has declined the request of a visiting group of MPs from another country for a meeting with a minister from his Department. [56851]

  Mr. Straw
  Whenever requests for meetings are received from Members of Parliament of another country, I and my colleagues and officials in my Department do our best to fulfil them. On some occasions this unfortunately proves not to be possible. For example, on Tuesday 20 October my office was asked by the Chilean Embassy if I was available to see a delegation of Chilean Opposition Parliamentarians to take receipt of a letter. My office said that I was not available but that my Private Secretary could take receipt of the letter. I have written further to the hon. Member about this matter. My Department does not, however, keep records for visits from MPs from other countries which are declined.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions on which he or a member of his ministerial team have met Members of Parliament from another country in the course of their visit to the United Kingdom. [56850]

  Mr. Straw
  No central record is kept of meetings held with Members of Parliament from other countries. The list cannot therefore be guaranteed to be comprehensive.
  127

  Date

  Lord Williams met:

  7 January

  Vjjal Dosanijh—Attorney General

  Maureen Maloney—Deputy Attorney General, British Columbia

  21 January

  Dr. Raul Granillo Ocampo—Minister of Justice, Argentina

  19 March

  Mr. Marat Baglai—Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Russia

  9 April

  Mr. Chris Sidoti—Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Australia

  28 April

  Mr. Zhang Geng—Vice Minister of Justice, China

  29 April

  Dr. Fernando Maurett—Member of the Lower Chamber of Parliament, Argentina

  21 May

  M. Montebourg—Deputy French Parliament. France

  2 July

  Mr. Murray Thompson MP, Australia

  Hon. Maree Luckins, Australia

  Mr. Carlo Carli MP, Australia

  Mr. Bob Cameron MP, Australia

  21 July

  Justice Sophia Akuffo—Justice of the Supreme Court, Ghana

  30 July

  Mr. Khalid Anwer—Minister of Law, Justice and Human Rights, Pakistan

  Waseem Afzal—Joint Secretary, Pakistan

  Javeed Iqbal—Deputy High Commissioner in the United Kingdom, Pakistan

  2 October

  Chaudry Mohammad Farooq—Attorney General, Pakistan

  Pakistan Khraar Quireshi (Aide)

  George Howarth met:

  7 July 1997

  Rodney Lopes Ambassador, Cuba

  15 September 1997

  Timothy E. Wirth, United States Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs

  29 October 1997

  Dr. Carlos Tablante, Minister for Venezuela

  12 November 1997

  Widar Andersson, Political Adviser, Swedish Prime Minister

  19 January 1998

  His Excellency Sar Kheng, Deputy Prime Minister for Cambodia

  4 March 1998

  Mr. Vorobiev, Russian Minister

  15 May 1998

  Snr. Costa Bauer, Peru

  20 May 1998

  Peino Arlacchi, Executive Director of United Nations Drug Control Programme

  8 July 1998

  Snr. Sottolongo, Cuban Justice Minister

  7 October 1998

  Kurban Boymuradov, Uzbekistan Deputy Prime Minister

  Joyce Quin met:

  3 June 1997

  Dr. Mzimela, South African Prisons Minister

  David Simmons, Barbadian Attorney General

  26 June 1997

  Colonel Turlajs, Latvian Interior Minister

  18 September 1997

  Kurt Schelter, German Interior Minister

  12 November 1997

  Valeriu Stoica, Romanian Minister of Justice

  25 November 1997

  European Parliament Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs Committee

  1 December 1997

  Jose Maria Gil-Robles, President of the European Parliament

  18 December 1997

  Georges Romeos, Greek Public Order Minister

  18 March 1998

  European Parliament Institutional Affairs Committee (6 MEPs)

  23 March 1998

  Bogomil Bonev, Bulgarian Interior Minister

  24 March 1998

  Alan Turk and Michel Dreyfus-Schmidt, French Senators

  25 March 1998

  George Anastassopoulos, Greek MEP

  6 April 1998

  Andy Scott, Canadian Prisons Minister

  20 April 1998

  Jussi Jarventaus, Finnish Justice Minister

  31 June 1998

  Hon. Dr. Peter Machungwa, Zambian Home Affairs Minister

  21 July 1998

  Polish Minister of the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister

  Mike O'Brien met:

  4 November 1997

  Mr. Bratinka, Minister Without Portfolio, Czech Republic

  12 November 1997

  Chief Buthelezi, Interior Minister, South Africa

  11 May 1998

  Home Affairs Minister, Bangladesh

  18 May 1998

  Mr. Atanasov, Interior Minister, Bulgaria

  27 May 1998

  Security Minister, Ivory Coast

  9 June 1998

  Mr. Bradford, Immigration Minister, New Zealand

  24 June 1998

  Mr. Winkler, Deputy Foreign Minister, Czech Republic

  19 October 1998

  Mr Kavan, Foreign Minister, Czech Republic and Mr. Uhl, Human Rights Monitor, Czech Republic

  Speed Cameras
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of(a) the effectiveness and (b) the cost-effectiveness of speed cameras as (i) a deterrent to speeding and (ii) a means of reducing accidents. [56547]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office study, "Cost Benefit Analysis of Traffic Light and Speed Cameras", which was published in August 1996, has shown that the use of speed
  128
  cameras is cost effective and highly successful in detecting offences. It is also successful in modifying the behaviour of drivers and reducing road casualties. A copy of the Study has been placed in the Library.

  The Government are committed to improving road safety and strongly support the police service in their use of enforcement technology. We are reviewing the current funding arrangements for these cameras to see what more might be done.
  129

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Defence Exhibitions
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) the value of financial support provided to United Kingdom companies attending, (b) those Ministers and other Government officials who attended and the cost of their attendance and (c) any other costs incurred by his Department in connection with (i) IMDEX Asia 97, (ii) Paris Air Show 1997, (iii) IDEF 97, (iv) IMDEX 97, (v) the Underwater Defence Technology Conference and Exhibition, (vi) the International Defence and Security Technology Fair, Brno, Czech Republic, (vii) the 3rd International Civil and Military Aerospace Exhibition, Prague and (viii) the 3rd Central European Defence Equipment and Aviation Exhibition and Conference, Budapest. [54165]

  Mr. Wilson
  The financial support provided by my Department under the Trade Fair Support Scheme (TFSS) to companies attending the Paris Air Show 97 and IDEF 97 is as follows:

  Event

  Companies supported

  Total funding(£)

  Paries Air Show 97

  38

  133.187

  IDEF 97

  8

  67,850

  No support was provided under the Trade Fair Support Scheme for any of the other events listed.

  The then President of the Board of Trade, the Minister for Energy and Industry and the Permanent Secretary attended the Paris Air Show 97; in addition 22 DTI Officials also attended at an approximate total cost of £12,000. My Department has been unable to identify a record of any DTI Ministers or Officials attending any of the other listed events.

  Massachusetts (Burma Law)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the EU pursuing a complaint at the World Trade Organisation against the US Government over the State of Massachusetts' Burma Law. [53664]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 31 July 1998]: The UK and EU consider that the Massachusetts Burma Selective Purchase Law breaks the United States' obligations under the World Trade Organisation's Government Procurement Agreement. On 8 September, after lengthy efforts to resolve the problem informally, the EU (and Japan) requested a formal WTO Panel. This request was agreed at the meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on 21 October.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the sponsors who are committed by written agreements to supporting the Millennium Experience, indicating in each case(a) the zones or activities concerned, (b) the amount of sponsorship and (c) the penalty laid down for non-performance of the agreement. [55678]
  130
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the total sponsorship guaranteed unconditionally to each zone of the Millennium Experience under written agreement, indicating the companies or organisations concerned, the zone they have agreed to sponsor and the value of the sponsorship. [56681]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has announced that the following companies have committed sponsorship to zones of the Dome and national programme strands at Board level:

  Zone

  National programme

  Sponsor

  Learn

  Tesco Schoolnet 2000

  Tesco

  Work

  UK Skills 2000

  Manpower

  Communicate

  FutureTalk

  BT

  National Identity (part sponsor)

  Children's Promise/ Voices of Promise

  Marks & Spencer

  Additionally BSkyB are sponsoring Babydome and both they and the sponsors listed above are Official Sponsors giving a sponsorship value of £12m each to the Millennium Experience project. Other sponsors announced and committed at Board level are: the Corporation of London; BA; BAA; GEC; BAe; Camelot; and Thames Water. The total commitment across the Official and other sponsors, already announced, is just over £100m. A further £60m of sponsorship is the subject of detailed negotiation. In addition, discussions between the NMEC and many other companies about further sponsorship opportunities are underway.

  The normal process of full and final negotiations between the NMEC and the committed sponsors is progressing. The scope and nature of each contract will differ according to a number of factors—including the zone, the associated national programme, and the value and type of sponsorship. To reveal details of individual aspects of the contracts under discussion with the individual sponsors would run contrary to the strict confidentiality the sponsors have sought and would harm the NMEC's negotiating position on sponsorship generally.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many meetings he has attended in the course of his official duties at which there has been discussion of sponsorship of the Millennium Experience; how many of these meetings included lobbying organisations; and what contribution he made to these discussions. [55688]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have not attended any meetings in the course of my official duties as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at which sponsorship of the Millennium Experience was discussed. The New Millennium Experience Company are responsible for procuring sponsorship for the new project and they keep me regularly informed of progress.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what performance targets regarding(a) time and (b) budget have been set for the delivery of the Millennium Experience; and what penalties will be incurred by directors, executives, and employees of the New Millennium Experience Company in the event of failure to meet those targets. [55687]
  131
  Mr. Mandelson
  The two overriding time and budget targets are: that the Millennium Dome is completely ready for opening by 31 December 1999; and that the entire project (including the Dome and the national programme of events and activities) is delivered within the £758 million budget. More detailed targets across the different programmes of the project are agreed between the New Millennium Experience Company and the Millennium Commission as part of the planning process. The Company published their Corporate Plan for 1997–98 to 2000–01 in early August, copies of which were placed in the Libraries of the House. The consequences for individuals of failure to meet targets is a matter for the NMEC and its Board.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the sponsorship of the Spirit Zone of the Millennium Experience. [55679]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Millennium Experience project overall is progressing well, and that includes the Spirit Zone. The development of the zone design and storyline is on track and being taken forward in full consultation with the Lambeth Group. Positive discussions with a number of potential sponsors are also underway.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government have taken to ensure that the electricity supply will not be disrupted by the millennium bug. [55793]

  Mr. Battle
  The electricity industry has made extensive preparations over several years to ensure that the millennium bug does not disrupt normal service. This work is continuing. My Department, the Director General of Electricity Supply and Action 2000 are monitoring these preparations and are discussing with the industry what more needs to be done to provide an independent assessment of progress, of what has been completed and of what more needs to be done. The Department and the Director General are also discussing with the industry the timing and nature of statements needed to reassure consumers that any potential problems are being tackled effectively.

  Euro Fact Sheets
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many information packs inviting businesses to order fact sheets on preparation for the launch of the euro have been sent out; and how many businesses have requested those fact sheets. [55795]

  Mr. Mandelson
  In September, my noble Friend Lord Simon sent letters to 1.6 million small and medium sized businesses inviting them to find out what the introduction of the euro on 1 January next year would mean for them. The letter invited firms to send for a set of the "business preparations for the euro" fact sheets prepared by the Treasury's Euro Preparations Unit (EPU). In addition to this, the DTI has sent to exporters and business organisations more than 140,000 leaflets on the euro which direct businesses to the fact sheets for further information. To date, more than 220,000 fact sheet packs have been asked for by UK businesses and intermediaries.
  132

  British Petroleum
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to British Petroleum concerning the Company's internal investigation into arms sales and military activity in Colombia. [56258]

  Mrs. Roche
  No representation has been made to British Petroleum concerning the Company's internal investigation into arms sales and military activity in Colombia. The British Government believe that this matter is best dealt with by BP and the Colombian Government.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about progress in negotiating the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [56321]

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's present policy towards the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [56539]

  Mr. Wilson
  The French Government announced, on 14 October, their decision to withdraw from the MAI negotiations. Together with our partners in the OECD, we are considering the full implications for the Agreement. The intention of MAI negotiators had been to present an Agreement to Ministers for signature in May 1999, but this now seems most unlikely. The Government—together with our EU partners—remain committed in the longer term to promoting negotiations on investment through the WTO and to the development of a liberal, rules-based framework for international investment that takes full account of social, environmental and development issues.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from regional development agencies concerning the implications for their activities of the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [56152]

  Mr. Wilson
  None.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list forthcoming intergovernmental meetings at which his Department will be represented to discuss the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [56155]

  Mr. Wilson
  No dates have been set for any further meetings of the MAI Negotiating Group. I understand that the OECD Secretariat plan to organise a meeting in December for consultations between MAI negotiating parties. I also understand that the Austrian Presidency may call a meeting at EU level in November.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what means he consults the Governments of developing countries in respect of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [56154]

  Mr. Wilson
  The OECD Secretariat have organised a number of "outreach" sessions to developing countries during the course of the MAI negotiations. UK government officials have participated actively in a number of these sessions. In addition, the Department for
  133
  International Development has ongoing bilateral discussions with a number of developing countries on investment-related issues.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to announce the new map for RSA. [55960]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: Regional Selective Assistance is available in the assisted areas. Following the introduction of new European Commission guidelines on national regional aid, the Government is required to submit to the European Commission by 31 March 1999 proposals for designating new assisted areas. Once the proposals are agreed, the Government will announce the new map.

  Working Time Regulations
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representation he has received from agencies and other involved in temporary placements concerning the working time regulations. [55957]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: The Department has received many representations from agencies, both in the form of responses to the consultation on the draft Working Time Regulations, other correspondence and meetings with officials. These responses were taken into account in drafting the final Regulations.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect on the average cost of employing temporary employees of the working time regulations. [55956]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: There was no specific assessment of the cost of employing temporary workers. An assessment for the whole of British industry was made, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who has responsibility for setting the level of grant offered to inward investors in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland; and what arrangements ensure that they are not competing for the same business. [55963]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: Decisions on the level of Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) grant to be offered to a potential inward investor are taken once a single site in the UK has been chosen. Responsibility for final decisions rests with me, as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if the site is in England, with the Secretary of State for Scotland if the site is in Scotland, and with the Secretary of State for Wales if the site is in Wales. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for the final decision on the level of Selective Financial Assistance to be offered to a potential inward investor if the site is in Northern Ireland.
  134
  The Invest in Britain Bureau chairs the Committee on Overseas Promotion, part of whose role is to monitor rules agreed by Departments to avoid wasteful competition between the inward investment agencies of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the English regions.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for the extent of the coverage of the assisted areas map. [55959]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: Under new European Guidelines on regional aid published in March, the proportion of Great Britain's working population covered by the assisted areas (currently some 34%) must be reduced; the maximum reduction is 25%. The actual figure will depend on statistics to be produced by Eurostat and the Commission will inform us of the outcome by the end of the year.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he plans to undertake with those regions from which he proposes to withdraw regional aid. [55958]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: The Government published a consultation document seeking views on the basis for the new map in July. A copy was sent to the right hon. Gentlemen.

  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 1050, and the recommendations in the Fifth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life concerning blind trusts, if an alternative arrangement to the blind trust for Lord Sainsbury's shareholdings will be made. [56377]

  Mr. Mandelson
  No. The blind trust for Lord Sainsbury's shareholdings was set up in accordance with the guidance in the Ministerial Code as one of the means of avoiding actual or potential conflicts of interest between a Minister's public responsibilities and private interests. The recommendations in the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life do not require any changes in blind trusts of this type.

  BSkyB and Manchester United
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 1037, if he will stand aside in his regulatory role in respect of the takeover by BSkyB of Manchester United; and if he will make a statement. [56006]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: As in all cases I have carefully considered whether there is any reason why I should stand aside from a decision on whether the proposed acquisition by BSkyB of Manchester United should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and have discussed it with officials. I have decided that there is no reason for me to stand aside.
  135

  Dounreay
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to publish the UKAEA initial response to the Dounreay Safety Audit. [55851]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: UKAEA plan to publish their response and action plan on 30 November 1998, the date for submitting it to the regulators for discussion. HSE/SEPA acknowledge in their report that it will take some time to deal with the recommendations. HSE/SEPA intends to keep the public informed of progress against the action plan by publishing

  Thousand

  Standard Industrial Classification (1992)

  Description

  September 1996

  June 1998

  Motor car industry (including major component industries)

  SIC(92)25.11

  Manufacture of rubber tyres and tubes

  14.7

  n/a

  SIC(92)31.61

  Manufacture of electrical equipment for engines and vehicles not elsewhere specified

  15.1

  n/a

  SIC(92)34

  Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers

  222.8

  1222.4

  Telecommunications industry

  SIC(92)32.20/1

  Manufacture of telegraph and telephone apparatus and equipment

  235.5

  n/a

  SIC(92)64.2

  Telecommunications

  182.9

  225.1

  1 226.5 thousand for United Kingdom

  2 Annual Business Inquiry; relates to United Kingdom

  source:

  Office for National Statistics. Unless otherwise indicated, data are taken from the Annual Employment Survey 1996 and subsequent Short-term Employer Surveys

  Water Charging
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 907, what response the Director General of Electricity Supply has given to his letter concerning the use of pre-payment meters to recover water debts. [56412]

  Mr. Battle
  The Director General of Electricity Supply will be writing direct to my hon. Friend, with a copy to me, shortly.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what sums are expected to be paid to the Government in sales levies to recoup launch investment by(a) British Aerospace, (b) Rolls-Royce and (c) other UK aerospace companies in each of the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [56479]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: Launch investment returns depend on the level of sales of the various aerospace products in which the Government have previously invested. We are expecting to receive, in total, over £100m in levies in each of the next ten years from a number of aerospace companies. Information about possible levies from individual companies is commercially confidential.

  £ million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  BBSRC

  185.739

  198.299

  202.994

  208.189

  ESRC

  65.990

  69.754

  71.174

  72.901

  EPSRC

  382.982

  397.584

  410.850

  427.179

  MRC

  290.208

  304.538

  319.173

  334.068

  NERC1

  168.819

  178.530

  181.757

  187.457

  136
  report from time to time and also through the normal quarterly reports to the Dounreay Local Liaison Committee.

  Motor Car and Telecommunications Industries
  Mr.Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary for Trade and Industry how many people are employed in the UK in(a)the motor car industry,and (b) the telecommunications industry,broadly defined. [56510]

  Mr.Battle
  The information available is as follows Unless otherwise stated, figures relate to Great Britain.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will announce the allocation of the Science Budget; and if he will make a statement. [56842]

  Mr. Mandelson
  As a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Science Budget was increased by £700 million over the next three years. This is solid evidence that science is a major priority for the Government. Of these additional funds, £300 million is the Science Budget contribution to a ground breaking £600 million partnership with the Wellcome Trust to upgrade university research laboratories and equipment. I am most grateful to the Trustees of the Trust for their contribution, and also their further contribution of £110 million towards the cost of a new high intensity X-ray source. Over the period of these allocations, £35 million of the Science Budget has been reserved for this DIAMOND project. A further £20 million of the additional money for the Science Budget is earmarked for the Science Budget's contribution to "University Challenge", a joint project to provide seed corn funding to enable universities to exploit ideas emerging from their research.

  After receiving advice from action from the Director General of Research Councils, I have decided that the Science Budget should be allocated as follows:
  137

  £million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  PPARC1

  194.220

  196.306

  200.687

  204.228

  International/Contingency

  3.028

  (9.185)

  15.000

  15.000

  CCLRC

  1.462

  2.000

  2.000

  2.000

  Royal Society

  22.621

  23.850

  24.622

  25.745

  Royal Academy of Engineering

  3.436

  3.706

  4.025

  4.270

  OST Initiatives

  2.376

  2.750

  2.800

  2.850

  Superannuation Supplement

  12.298

  11.991

  14.368

  14.750

  Foresight LINK Awards

  1.000

  1.000

  3.000

  4.000

  University Challenge

  —

  10.000

  10.000

  —

  DIAMOND

  —

  —

  15.000

  20.000

  Joint Research Equipment Initiative

  4.147

  7.000

  10.000

  10.000

  Joint Infrastructure Fund

  —

  75.000

  100.000

  125.000

  Total

  1,338.326

  1,473.123

  1,587.450

  1,657.637

  1 NERC and PPARC figures for 1998–99 have been adjusted for cash flow changes to show the underlying baseline Further details are available in a booklet on the allocations, which I have placed in the Library of both Houses

  Supermarket Monopolies
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the Director General of Fair Trading relating to potential monopolistic behaviour amongst the four leading supermarkets. [56356]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: Since taking up current Ministerial posts, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met the Director General of Fair Trading, whilst I have met him twice. My right hon. Friend and I are aware of the Office of Fair Trading investigation into the profitability of the major supermarkets in the grocery sector. The Director General exercises his powers independently of Ministers. I have not raised the matter of potential monopolistic behaviour amongst the four leading supermarkets with him.

  Fuel Cell Technology
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance he is giving to the development of fuel cell technology as a means of powering vehicles. [56729]

  Mr. Battle
  Fuel cells and reformers are supported by the Department's Advanced Fuel Cells Programme covering both transport and stationary applications. Since 1992, the programme has supported over 92 projects with a total value of about £34m, including industry contributions. Current work in the transport area includes a bus design studies project to evaluate fuel processing and fuel options for urban bus applications, and the programme is in negotiation with a leading UK bus manufacturer to develop and test the first UK fuel cell powered urban bus. Future support for fuel cells is being considered as part of the Government's review of policy for new and renewable energy.

  In addition, the Foresight Vehicle acts to co-ordinate publicly funded automotive R&D in the UK. Under the Department's supporting Foresight Vehicle LINK Programme up to £11.5 million is being made available, to be matched by industry, for research into system technologies for future vehicles. Proposals are currently being sought in the area of hybrid, electric and alternatively fuelled vehicles which includes technologies for onboard storage of gas and development of fuel cell electric vehicle powertrain systems.
  138
  The DTI's LINK Applied Catalysis and Catalytic Processes programme is providing a grant of £227k over two years to a consortium developing a low cost hydrogen generator for cars to support fuel cell deployment.

  In addition, the EPSRC has been supporting basic and applied research in its "directed" fuel cells programme for the past 4 years. It has funded 26 projects totalling £3.7m. Fuel Cells are expected to form part of its £3.5m p.a. Renewable and New Energy Technologies Programme which is due to be launched next year.

  South Africa
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department is taking to encourage bilateral trade with South Africa. [54308]

  Mr. Wilson
  A three year trade and investment promotion campaign was launched in May this year promoting partnerships between business and government in the two markets. At the launch, an Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (IPPA) was ratified and the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) announced its intention to enter into a co-operation agreement with counterparts in South Africa to establish co-financing mechanisms to support joint UK/South Africa projects in other parts of Southern Africa. The agreement was subsequently signed in September. An Internet based Gateway search engine was launched to assist smaller enterprises to research the South African market and a pilot study was launched to look at the scope for promoting partnerships between smaller enterprises, including South African enterprises operated by previously disadvantaged groups. Visits by ministers included an outward investment mission to Johannesburg and Durban led by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry in July, followed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's visit to Johannesburg in September to co-host the first Partnership Week under the campaign with the South African Minister for Trade and Industry. Workshops on privatisation, design and tourism were extremely well attended by South African business and government officials alike. Ministers have also hosted several visits by South African central and provincial government ministers and VIPs. Underpinning these visits are eight trade missions to both markets, and six sector based initiatives involving workshops and follow-up missions planned for the year ending March 1999. The British and South African Departments of Trade and
  139
  Industry are working together on trade and investment promotion, including hosting inward missions from South Africa to train new entrants on trade promotion, human resource and policy issues.

  Electricity Imports
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with large energy users about the implications of current reductions in supply availability arising in part from French nuclear outages for future energy costs. [56773]

  Mr. Battle
  The impact on electricity prices of possible reductions in imports of electricity from France over the coming winter has been raised with my officials. It is not yet clear whether the current reductions in imports will persist and what the impact on pool prices will be if they do.

  Ariane 5
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the potential benefits to those British industries which work in the fields of structures, propulsion and avionics, of participation in the Ariane 5 Evolution Programme. [55383]

  Mr. Battle
  The British National Space Centre has considered the views of the United Kingdom space industry on the likely benefits to the United Kingdom of participation in Ariane 5 Programmes. There are no current plans to join the Ariane 5 Evolution Programme.

PRIME MINISTER

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

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 October 1998, c. 1123–35]: The Minister of Transport was inadvertently omitted from the composition of the Ministerial Committee on Economic Affairs. The correct composition for this committee is as follows:

  Ministerial Committee on Economic Affairs (EA) Composition

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Chair)

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

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  140

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of Transport

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

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

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

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the allocation of European matters to Cabinet committees and Ministerial sub-committees in the period since 1992, listing changes in that allocation and the reasons for them. [57020]

  The Prime Minister
  The composition and terms of reference of Cabinet Committees and their Ministerial Sub-Committees were first published by the previous Government on 19 May 1992,Official Report, columns 110–18. Since then updated details of these Committees have been published periodically, most recently on 21 October 1998, Official Report, columns 1123–35, when I announced the details of the Ministerial Committees which I have established to date. European Union matters will be considered by these Committees from time to time. The principal Committee for considering questions relating to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union is the Ministerial Sub-Committee on European Issues which is chaired by the Foreign Secretary and which reports to the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy.

  China
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister what were his priorities for his recent visit to China; and which Chinese Ministers he met. [56428]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: My visit was intended to mark a new chapter in the United Kingdom's relations with China following the successful handover of Hong Kong. As set out in our joint statement, we agreed to enhance co-operation in areas of bilateral, regional and global interest including financial issues, trade and investment and environmental protection, and encourage closer cultural and educational contacts. At the same time, we shall continue to pursue our bilateral dialogue on human rights. In addition to my meetings with the Chinese President and Premier, I met the Vice Premier (Mr. Li Lanqing), the Vice Foreign Minister (Mr. Wangfan), the Minister of Foreign Trade (Mr. Shi Guangsheng), the Minister of Civil Aviation (Mr. Liu Jianseng) and the Vice Minister of Justice (Miss Liu Yang).

  Sudan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 915, on the US air raid on Sudan, what was the volume of the soil sample acquired clandestinely at the Al Shifa plant; and what steps were taken to establish that (a) it came from the Al Shifa plant and (b) it was untampered with before laboratory tests by American staff. [56774]
  141
  The Prime Minister
  It is established practice under Section 1(c) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose or discuss information received in confidence from foreign Governments.

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Prime Minister, to which Cabinet committees the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office has been appointed; and if he will make a statement. [56696]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on 21 October 1998,Official Report, columns 1123–35.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Middle East
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the future role of the European Union in the middle east peace process. [54302]

  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the future role of Her Majesty's Government in the middle east peace process. [54306]

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the future role of Her Majesty's Government in the middle east peace process. [54315]

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [54323]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I welcome the Wye River memorandum signed in Washington last week. I pay particular tribute to President Clinton whose personal engagement was crucial to success of these talks. We now need to see swift implementation of the agreement, accompanied by progress on the outstanding issues and a successful start to the final status negotiations, to maintain forward movement in the peace process. The EU is ready to sustain the momentum generated at Wye by helping with implementation, and will be discussing with the US how best to integrate its contribution into the next stages.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Israeli Prime Minister to discuss the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [54309]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to meet Prime Minister Netanyahu. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna).

  European Union
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards European Union enlargement; and if he will make a statement. [54303]
  142
  Mr. Robin Cook
  Britain negotiated the launch of the enlargement process during our Presidency and progress in the accession talks has been good. We expect that next month we can move from the screening process to substantive negotiations with six of the candidate countries.

  Last week I visited two other candidate countries—Bulgaria and Romania—whose governments both expressed their warm appreciation of Britain's support for the enlargement of the European Union.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of talks between Spain and the United Kingdom about Gibraltar. [54305]

  Ms Quin
  We continue to discuss Gibraltar with Spain as agreed in the Brussels Communique of 27 November 1984. We expect to hold a further meeting early next year.

  Institute of Export
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Institute of Export to discuss the trade promotion role of his Department. [54310]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at present has no plans to do so. In my role as FCO Minister responsible for trade promotion, I met the Institute's Director General (Ian Campbell) in June at the "Open for Business" presentation which I hosted for MPs and business representatives.

  Lockerbie
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in seeking to resolve the issue of a trial of alleged perpetrators of the Lockerbie bombing. [54311]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer given to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), 27 October 1998,Official Report, column 152.

  Entry Visas
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received regarding entry visas to the United Kingdom. [54313]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Since 1 January 1998 we have received 7,756 letters from Members about entry clearance matters.

  Iran (Ballistic Missiles)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the proliferation of ballistic missiles in Iran on the balance of power in the middle east. [54314]

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the proliferation of ballistic missiles in Iran on the balance of power in the Middle East. [54307]
  143
  Mr. Fatchett
  We were extremely concerned by Iran's flight test of its Shahab 3 ballistic missile in July. The acquisition of this system, with an approximate range of 1300 km, threatens the stability of the whole of the Middle East. We assess that the Shahab 3 is still in its development phase and, consequently, Iran will not be able to deploy the system in the immediate future. Whilst we understand Iran's legitimate security concerns, we have repeatedly urged the Iranian authorities to refrain from developing ballistic missiles. It is in nobody's interest for an arms race to develop in this already volatile region.

  The UK, as a founder member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), works with its partners to halt the proliferation of ballistic missiles programmes of concern. The MTCR has done much to deny, amongst others, the Iranian ballistic missile programme, key technologies and equipment.

  United States
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on the United Kingdom's relations with the USA. [54316]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We receive numerous representations about individual aspects of our relations with the United States; but we have received none recently about the overall state of our relations in general.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of residents of the island of St. Helena. [54317]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Most residents of St. Helena are British Dependent Territories Citizens. The issue of British citizenship for residents of all UK Overseas Territories who do not already have it is a complex one. It is being considered sympathetically in the current Review of UK Overseas Territories and the result will be published in the White Paper.

  Caribbean
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with his counterparts in the European Union relating to policy in the Caribbean. [54318]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has regular meetings with his EU counterparts, including on Caribbean issues. In June these included an EU mandate for the re-negotiation of the Lomé Convention. In February, he and Ministerial colleagues held discussions at the UK/Caribbean Forum in Nassau.

  European Commission
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the European Union to reform the European Commission in respect of the number of members represented on it. [54319]
  144
  Ms Quin
  The Protocol on the Institutions with the Prospect of Enlargement of the European Union, attached to the Amsterdam Treaty, sets out a framework for tackling institutional issues not resolved at Amsterdam. It foresees agreement on the number of Commissioners before the first enlargement of the Union.

  At the Cardiff European Council, Heads of State and Government agreed that, once the Amsterdam Treaty had entered into force, an early decision would be required on how and when to tackle these issues.

  Colombia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the new Government of Colombia to discuss United Kingdom relations with that country. [54320]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have just returned from a visit to Colombia where I met several members of the new government including President Pastrana and the Foreign Minister, with whom I discussed a wide range of subjects of bilateral interest.

  Agenda 2000
  Miss Mcintosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the timetable for adopting Agenda 2000 with regard to enlargement. [54321]

  Ms Quin
  The Cardiff European Council agreed to adopt the Agenda 2000 proposals by June 1999. The reform of key policies is essential if enlargement is to be successful. The accession process is making good progress. The date of the first accessions will depend on the speed and success of the applicants' continuing preparations.

  Indonesia
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's role in promoting political reform in Indonesia. [54322]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have welcomed the reforms announced in Indonesia since President Habibie came to power, particularly the announcement of elections next year. To show our commitment to the process of political reform, I visited Jakarta on 8 October and met President Habibie, members of his Cabinet and leading Opposition figures. I announced that Britain was ready to give practical assistance to help Indonesia hold free and fair elections.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he has taken to end political violence in Kosovo. [54324]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave in an oral answer today to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), 27 October 1998,Official Report, column 139.
  145

  Drugs
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made by his Department's special representative on international drugs issues in reducing the supply of drugs to Britain. [54289]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Special Representative identified the source and transit countries which pose the greatest threat to this country and has focused our international anti-drugs effort where it has the greatest impact on supply to the UK. A recent example of such targeted spending was announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Bulgaria on 20 October: we are providing a package of training worth £37,500 to help the Bulgarian law enforcement agencies to develop their anti-narcotics capabilities. In the financial year 1998–99 we expect to spend about £6 million on anti-drugs projects.

  Sierra Leone
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Sierra Leone donors conference. [54294]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I attended the United Nations Special Conference on Sierra Leone in New York on 30 July. It focused on the need for reconciliation and the restoration of democracy following the brutal rule of the military junta. Britain is leading the way in this. At the Conference, I announced a Department for International Development pledge of £6.5 million over two years to support the Government of Sierra Leone's Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration plan. In total, Britain has committed over £20 million for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Sierra Leone since March 1998.

  Camilla Carr and Jon James
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the welfare of Camilla Carr and Jon James. [54304]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Camilla Carr and Jon James are in remarkably good health after their long and traumatic ordeal. They have displayed admirable resilience and strength of character. They have now returned home, where they are continuing their recovery with the support of family and friends. The Foreign Office remains in regular contact.

  Overseas Visits (Advisers)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [55998]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: I was accompanied by my Special Adviser, Mr. David Clark, when he travelled to Brussels for meetings, including calls on the NATO Secretary General Sonana
  146
  and SACEUR General Wesley Clark to discuss Kosovo. My party travelled on an RAF 125 official aircraft. The cost to the FCO budget for Mr. Clark was £229.

  Since the visit was completed in a day, no accommodation costs were incurred.

  Argentina
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there have been any new exceptions to the arms embargo on Argentina. [57153]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have recently granted two exceptions to the embargo. The first was in respect of the sale of a further 24 nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protections suits and 8 pairs of boots for use by the Argentine contingent of the UN task force in Kuwait. The second exception was in respect of the export of 745 shotgun cartridges to an Argentine sporting goods retailer for sport and hunting use. These decisions represent exceptions but not changes to the embargo.

  General Pinochet
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department informed the Spanish authorities that General Pinochet was visiting the United Kingdom in October 1997. [57011]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department provided to the Spanish authorities about General Pinochet's intention to leave the United Kingdom on 20 October; when this information was provided; and by whom. [57010]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We provided no information to the Spanish authorities of any plan for Senator Pinochet to leave the UK.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department provided to Amnesty International about General Pinochet's travel arrangements prior to 17 October. [57012]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No information was passed to Amnesty International by the FCO about Senator Pinochet's travel arrangements.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department was informed, and by whom, that General Pinochet was leaving the United Kingdom on 20 October. [57016]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials were informed on 15 October by the Chilean Embassy that consideration was being given to Senator Pinochet leaving the UK on 20 October.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department(a) arranged for and (b) paid for the use of a VIP suite at the airport for the visits of General Pinochet to the United Kingdom in (i) October 1997 and (ii) September 1998. [57014]
  147
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The VIP suite in each case was put at the disposal of Senator Pinochet, and paid for by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as usual.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department was informed that General Pinochet was visiting the United Kingdom during October 1997. [57013]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We were notified on 17 September 1997.

  Foreign Visitors
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what status is afforded by his Department to foreign visitors travelling to the United Kingdom under special resolutions of the Chilean Foreign Affairs Ministry. [57009]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None. Special arrangements are made according to the status of a visitor, e.g. Heads of State, Royalty, government ministers, heads of armed forces, chief justices, governors of central banks and heads of diplomatic missions and international organisations.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines are set by his Department for the reception of foreign members of parliament visiting the United Kingdom. [57015]

  Letters from Members of Parliament

  Replies sent within:

  15 days

  20 days

  25 days

  MPs' letters received

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Work outstanding over 25 days

  October 1997

  1,055

  399

  33

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  November 1997

  1,318

  261

  27

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1997

  507

  207

  31

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  January 1998

  943

  202

  31

  269

  41

  350

  54

  n/a

  February

  664

  190

  28

  246

  36

  312

  46

  n/a

  March 1998

  857

  328

  30

  423

  38

  534

  48

  270

  April 1998

  708

  416

  45

  492

  53

  603

  65

  128

  May 1998

  717

  390

  54

  458

  64

  538

  75

  84

  June 1998

  881

  515

  57

  624

  69

  725

  80

  91

  July 1998

  867

  410

  45

  601

  66

  701

  77

  125

  August 1998

  936

  382

  42

  522

  58

  622

  69

  142

  September 1998

  698

  437

  48

  564

  62

  641

  70

  112

  Cyprus
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the UK to press the Turkish authorities to implement the UN and Security Council resolutions relating to Cyprus and the restoration of human rights. [56777]

  Ms Quin
  We are committed to using the UK's unique position—as a Guarantor Power, a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council and as a member of the European Union—in strong support of the UN Secretary-General's efforts to achieve a comprehensive political settlement in Cyprus in line with UN Security Council resolutions.

  We therefore warmly welcome the UN Secretary-General's recent announcement of a UN process of contact between the parties aimed at reducing tensions
  148
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Members of foreign parliaments visiting the UK are treated like any other visitor on arrival unless they form part of the suite of a visiting VIP guest for whom special arrangements have been made, or are entitled to special facilities as result of past functions.

  India
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with India. [54284]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have warm relations with India. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Deputy Chairman of India's National Planning Commission, Jaswant Singh, on 2 October. I expect to visit India again in November.

  Immigration and Visa Unit
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of hon. Members' correspondence received by the Immigration and Visa Unit was replied to within 15 working days, for the last month for which figures are available; and what were the corresponding figures for each of the preceding 12 months. [56226]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Statistics for the period October 1997 to September 1998 are given in the table.

  and promoting progress towards a political settlement. We firmly support this process and urge all parties to co-operate with the UN in a constructive and flexible manner.

  We also fully endorse the steps taken through the Good Offices of the UN Secretary-General to address human rights issues in Cyprus and urge all concerned to co-operate in support of these.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the UK to press the Turkish authorities to disclose the fate of Greek Cypriots who have been missing since the invasion of 1974. [56776]

  Ms Quin
  We have the greatest sympathy for all Cypriots who have lost members of their family over the past 30 years or more. We fully support the steps taken through the Good Offices of the UN Secretary-General to
  149
  address human rights issues in Cyprus. We strongly endorse the efforts of the UN Committee on Missing Persons set up in 1981 to establish the fate of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots listed as missing from 1963 to 1975, and continue to urge all concerned to co-operate fully with it. We welcome the exchange carried out in January and April 1998 through the UN by the two communities of information on the fate of the missing and encourage the parties to make further progress on this important issue.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the UK to seek the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the occupied areas of Cyprus. [56775]

  Ms Quin
  We believe that the key to assuring the lasting security of all Cypriots is through a comprehensive political settlement. We fully support the UN Secretary-General's efforts to this end and urge all parties to co-operate in a constructive and flexible manner. We recognise eventual demilitarisation as an important objective in this context and encourage the Secretary-General to continue to promote efforts in this direction. UN Security Council

  Department

  Target (working days)

  Total volume

  Percentage of responses within target

  Target 1998–99

  Agencies included

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food1

  15

  65,410

  89

  15

  yes

  Cabinet Office (OPS)

  15

  6,226

  95.6

  15

  yes

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport2

  18

  21,162

  68

  18

  no

  Customs and Excise

  10

  572,430

  89

  10

  n/a

  Ministry of Defence3

  20

  5,922

  86

  20

  yes

  Department for Education and Employment

  15

  116,417

  88

  15

  no

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions4

  15

  672,980

  96

  15

  yes

  Department of Health1

  20

  46,675

  66

  20

  yes

  Home Office

  20

  5173,285

  81

  20

  6—

  Inland Revenue

  20

  785m

  873.7

  20

  n/a

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  20

  10,200

  77

  20

  no

  Northern Ireland Office (including Northern Ireland Departments)

  15

  198,160

  94

  15

  9—

  Department of Social Security

  20

  1032,168

  77

  20

  no

  Scottish Office

  20

  200,000

  71

  20

  yes

  Department of Trade and Industry

  15

  133,200

  95

  15

  no

  Welsh Office

  15

  65,087

  86

  15

  yes

  Benefits Agency2

  20

  25,816

  92

  20

  n/a

  Child Support Agency

  10

  11—

  67

  10

  n/a

  Child Support Agency (Northern Ireland)

  10

  2,981

  89

  10

  n/a

  Contributions Agency

  20

  259,302

  92

  20

  n/a

  Court Service

  10

  74,534,387

  99.5

  10

  n/a

  Employment Service

  10

  12—

  91

  10

  n/a

  Social Security Agency (Northern Ireland)

  15

  41,609

  96.5

  15

  n/a

  1 Correspondence received between 1 November 1997 and 31 March 1998

  2 Figures relate to correspondence addressed to Ministers

  3 Correspondence addressed to Ministers, e-mailed to the MOD web site, and mail on defence issues received by other departments between 1 August 1997 and 31 March 1998

  4 As a result of the large increase in correspondence after the General Election it was often impossible for letters to be passed to the answering division within 15 days. Consequently many parts of the Department have interpreted the target as being a response within 15 days of receipt in the responding division, rather than from when the letter was actually received in the Department

  5 The number of letters received by the Central Correspondence Unit from members of the public, and the percentage of letters meeting the target, was taken from a statistically monitored sample

  6 Includes all Home Office agencies except the Prison Service

  7 This is the number of items of post received by the Department's network of offices

  8 Holding replies are not counted in order to maximise the incentive to issue full replies quickly

  9 Includes all Northern Ireland departments' agencies except the Prison Service, and the CSA(NI) and SSA(NI) whose performance is shown separately

  10In addition 17,151 letters were received from DSS HQ but were passed on to the Department's executive agencies for reply and are therefore included in the agencies' return

  11 Total volumes are not recorded. Performance is calculated through a sample, which in 1997–98 was just under 25,000 letters

  12 Total volume not known. The performance against target was calculated by evaluating 4,000 letters sent out by a research company. In the same period some 780 letters were received addressed to Ministers—80.6 per cent. of these were cleared within 15 days

  150
  Resolution 1178 of 29 June 1998 called upon all concerned to commit themselves to a reduction in defence spending and a reduction in the number of foreign troops in the Republic of Cyprus.

CABINET OFFICE

  Service Standards
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the performance of the main departments and agencies against the six service standards for central Government. [55135]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  [pursuant to his reply, 31 July 1998, c. 647–48]: I regret that a previous reply was misleading in two respects. It showed the percentage of letters from members of the public replied to within the target date by the Ministry of Defence as 96 per cent. when it should have read 86 per cent. The total volume of letters received by the Department for Social Security read 32,618 when it should have read 32,168. The table shows the performance of all Departments and their Agencies with these amendments made.
  151

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Salmon
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number and total weight of(a) salmon and (b) grilse taken by (i) anglers and (ii) commercial nets in (1) drift and (2) estuary nets for each of the last five years and for 1985, 1980 and 1975 or as much of such information as is readily available; and

  Declared catches of salmon (including grilse) for the years 1975, 1980, 1985, 1993–97 in England and Wales

  Rods

  Drift nets

  Other nets1

  All nets

  Numbers caught

  Total weight caught (kg)

  Numbers caught

  Total weightcaught (kg)

  Numbers caught

  Total weight caught (kg)

  Numbers caught

  Total weight caught (kg)

  1975

  24,300

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  88,762

  340,091

  1980

  21,145

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  69,073

  266,850

  1985

  19,601

  81,788

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  75,932

  279,318

  1993

  214,059

  3(78%)

  51,091

  43,561

  157,667

  13,005

  44,644

  56,566

  202,311

  1994

  24,891

  3(75%)

  94,022

  46,674

  174,189

  19,783

  67,728

  66,457

  241,917

  1995

  16,006

  3(70%)

  61,009

  51,435

  187,597

  16,224

  58,139

  67,659

  245,736

  1996

  17,444

  3(63%)

  71,469

  18,801

  73,920

  13,879

  51,788

  32,680

  125,708

  19974

  13,047

  3(73%)

  41,996

  21,866

  75,057

  9,593

  32,177

  31,459

  107,234

  1 All nets other than drift nets, including fixed engines

  2 Likely torepresent a minimum figure due to low rate of catch returns by anglers

  3 Estimated proportion of grilse in rod catch for the years 1993–97

  4 Provisional figures n/a = not available

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers he has to prohibit the distribution or sale within the United Kingdom of genetically modified plant products for animal or human foodstuffs; and what proposals have been made by the Commission of the European Community for further regulations or directives permitting their growing or sale. [55693]

  Mr. Rooker
  Following EU approval under Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment or the Council Regulation 258/97 on Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients, the sale of such products can be temporarily prohibited by a Member State if new scientific evidence is provided which demonstrates that human health or the environment is likely to be endangered. Such evidence must then be examined and accepted by other EU Member States before any such prohibition can be made permanent. Moreover, under the Food Safety Act 1990, the distribution and sale of genetically modified food, or food products derived from animals fed on genetically modified materials, could be prohibited if there was an imminent risk of injury to human health.

  A Commission proposal for a Council Regulation on Novel Feeds, including genetically modified materials fed to animals, is expected by the end of the year. Discussions are also taking place on a revision of Directive 90/220/EEC with a view towards providing improved procedures for the regulation of genetically modified
  152
  if he will provide the same information for fish classed (x) 1 sea winter, (y) 2 sea winter and (z) 3 sea winter fish. [55569]

  Mr. Morley
  Available information for England and Wales is given in the table. All figures relate to salmon and grilse although the estimated proportion of grilse in rod catches for the period 1993–97 has also been included. It is not possible to provide any further reliable data on catches broken down by age-class.

  organisms, particularly a timetable for approval, whilst providing a framework necessary to address the concerns of public and industry.

  Calf Processing Aid Scheme
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total cost of the calf processing aid scheme has been in the United Kingdom in each year to date. [55947]

  Mr. Rooker
  Expenditure on payments to operators in the UK for each financial year to date has been as follows:

  Year

  £million

  1996–97

  51

  1997–98

  53

  1998–99 (to 30 September)

  21

  Agrimonetary Compensatory Amounts
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is(a) the maximum permissible and (b) the actual or anticipated total of agrimonetary compensatory amounts paid out in 1997–98 and 1998–99. [55945]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is not possible to split the agrimonetary compensatory amounts into periods as specified in the question. The total amount that was available to the UK over the period in question is around £958 million, half of which could be reclaimed from the EU budget. This is broken down in the table. The bulk of this compensation was generated by green pound revaluations in 1997.
  153
  On 18 December 1997 we announced our intention to access some £85 million of this aid. Payment of this compensation has now been made, with £72.5 million of the aid resulting from the four revaluations of 1997 being paid to suckler cow producers, and £12.5 million being paid to sheep producers to compensate for the drop in their 1998 SAPS payments.

  Table showing agrimonetary compensation available to the UK over the period from 1997 to date

  £million

  First year compensation1

  Second year compensation

  Trigger event

  Deadline for initial notification to commission

  Payable

  Eufunded

  Payable

  EU funded

  Revaluation of 21 January 1997

  31 January 1998

  2131

  265.5

  87.3

  43.7

  Revaluation of 29 March 1997

  31 March 1998

  2123

  261.5

  82

  41

  Revaluation of 5 June 1997

  30 June 1998

  298.6

  249.3

  65.7

  32.9

  Direct Payments (arable aid) 1997

  31 December 1997

  53.4

  26.7

  nil

  nil

  Direct Payment (flax and hemp) 1997

  31 January 1998

  0.4

  0.2

  nil

  nil

  Revaluation of 21 August 1997

  31 August 1998

  2112

  256

  74.6

  37.3

  Direct payments (livestock, agri-environment and structural) for 1998

  30 June 1998

  237.9

  219

  nil

  nil

  Revaluation of 3 May 1998

  31 May 1998

  1.5

  0.7

  0.7

  0.3

  Direct payments (arable aid)1998

  31 December 1998

  89.2

  44.6

  nil

  nil

  Direct payments (flax and hemp) 1998

  31 January 1999

  0.9

  0.5

  nil

  nil

  Sub total

  647.9

  310.3

  Total over both periods

  958.2

  1 i.e. during the first 12 month period following the trigger event

  2 Package of aid which was partly accessed to fund the £85 million aid to live stock producers in early 1998

  Horses
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the European Union classification of horses as food-producing animals. [55806]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have received representations from the British Equine Veterinary Association, the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe and individual horse owners. Under European law, the horse is classified as a food producing animal. However, the Government have been guided by a statement by European Commission officials that, if a horse is not destined for human consumption, maximum residue limits are not required. It would of course be a requirement that the product should be clearly marked as not to be used on any horse that might be intended for human consumption.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the numbers and types of veterinary medicines used for horses which do not currently have a maximum residual limit; and what estimate he has made of the proportion which will not have a submitted MRL by 1 January 2000. [55807]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are 244 veterinary medicinal products authorised for use in horses in the United Kingdom containing a variety of active ingredients. 197 active ingredients for use in horses have been evaluated under the MRL Regulations. Under European law, the horse is classified as a food producing animal. However, the Government have been guided by a statement by European Commission officials that, if a horse is not destined for human consumption, maximum residue limits
  are not requried.
  154
  This aid has provided substantial additional assistance to the livestock sector. As we indicated at the time, it was an exceptional response to exceptional circumstances.

  Nevertheless, recognising the difficulties being faced by the industry we are maintaining close contact with the farming unions and other interested organisations and keeping the situation under review.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which drugs used to support blood pressure during anaesthesia used in the United Kingdom for horses do not currently have a submitted maximum residual level; how many he expects to have a MRL by 1 January; and how many presently have a submitted MRL. [55804]

  Mr. Rooker
  There is no veterinary medicinal product authorised in the United Kingdom to support blood pressure during anaesthesia of horses. Applications for authorisation should be submitted to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and would be assessed against statutory criteria for safety, quality and efficacy.

  Farm Subsidies
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give a breakdown of the £2 billion provided in 1997–98 to support British agriculture. [55749]

  Mr. Rooker
  Full details of the financial support for agriculture in 1997–98 can be found in the MAFF/Intervention Board 1998 Departmental Report to Parliament, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what means his Department intends to promote the take-up of the new arrangements in support of farmers switching to organic farming.[55751]

  Mr. Morley
  At the end of July, we announced proposals for a new Organic Aid with substantial improvements in the rate of aid for conversion of most
  155
  types of land. The proposals are subject to the approval of the European Commission but it is hoped that the new scheme will be able to begin early next year.

  The enhanced rates should in themselves encourage take up of the scheme. But the scheme will be actively promoted and the Government are already giving extra resources to the Organic Conversion Information Service, which provides free advice for those considering farming organically.

  Pigs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on which day he wrote to the Ministry of Defence to ask it to look at the sources from which they buy pork and other pig meat products. [56364]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: Immediately following my attendance at the Adjournment Debate on the pig industry in the House on 29 July 1998, Official Report, columns 346–354, I spoke to colleagues at the Ministry of Defence about their sourcing policies. Inter-departmental discussions at Ministerial and official level followed over the summer, culminating in my writing to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement on 23 September to confirm arrangements for the sourcing for the Armed Forces of pork and other pigmeat products.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 22 October. [57154]

  Mr. Morley
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 22 October together with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald).

  Major progress was made towards agreeing measures to amend the fisheries control regulation paving the way for their formal adoption by the end of the year. The proposals are aimed at strengthening control arrangements throughout the fisheries sector, including the more effective monitoring of third country vessels operating in Community waters, improved transparency of enforcement activity, a stronger role for Commission inspectors, and increased co-operation among Member States. Importantly, I was able to secure agreement that Member States may apply national designated port controls to all vessels landing into their territory along with more rigorous Community requirements for vessels landing abroad where designated port arrangements do not operate.

  Political agreement was reached on supplementary measures which may be introduced in those Member States affected by the decision at the June Fisheries Council to phase out the use of high seas drift nets. Such measures must be confined to fishermen who suffer a real loss as a result of the drift net ban. They are additional to the options already available under existing structural provisions. A decision will be taken on implementation in the UK after consultations with the fishermen concerned.
  156
  The Council had an exchange of views on the future of structural policies in the fisheries sector in the context of proposals tabled by the Commission in March for reform of the EU Structural Funds within the framework of Agenda 2000. Discussion focused in particular on the need for simplification of procedures and for an appropriate balance between measures to achieve restructuring of national fleets and those specific to regional programmes. The Presidency will be reporting these concerns to the General Affairs Council, which is responsible for taking decisions on the Agenda 2000 framework. However, the Fisheries Council will itself return to the subject in the context of a further proposal expected from the European Commission shortly which will set out the detailed proposals for fisheries structural measures.

  Tuberculosis
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the collection of information about tuberculosis risk factors from cattle breakdown farms. [57228]

  Mr. Rooker
  During November the Ministry will be carrying out a pilot study using new survey forms designed to collect information on cattle movements, husbandry practices, wildlife on farms, and the local environment from farms which have suffered TB incidents, and from others which will act as controls. Comments on the forms are being invited from the farming and scientific communities and the public.

  In December we will review the forms, and from January we intend to use them to gain information following all TB breakdowns. The information collected will be analysed alongside other data on local weather conditions and patterns of badger activity to determine which factors seem to be associated with a higher TB risk. These factors can then be investigated more closely.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications of the Comprehensive Spending Review for his Department's expenditure plans for the next three years. [57156]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I explained in broad terms the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) for MAFF in my written statement to the House on 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 341–45. Since then my officials have been translating the baselines for current, capital and ring-fenced BSE expenditure into budgets for the Department's individual programmes of activity. This process is complicated by the need to revise the programme structure to fit the Department's new aim and objectives. A detailed breakdown of planned expenditure will be published in MAFF's 1999 Departmental Report.

  In the meantime I am setting out the key financial implications of the CSR for MAFF.
  Current: running costs
  The settlement includes £360.4 million in 1999–2000, £358.7 million in 2000–01 and £349.6 million in 2001–02 for MAFF's gross running costs, a change of £+5.2/+3.5/-5.6 million from the Department's 1998–99 running cost ceiling. Using the Treasury's
  157
  GDP deflator, this represents a year-on-year cut in real terms of 1.1/2.9/4.9 per cent. and a cumulative reduction compared with the 1998–99 baseline of 1.1/4.0/8.7 per cent. Included in the Departmental running costs baseline for the next three years is an additional £20.5/29.6/22.1 million for new work (including implementation of the Krebs report, food safety and modernising the administration of CAP payments). That means that the amount available for existing work is £339.9/329.1/327.5 million, a reduction of £15.3/26.1/27.7 million compared with the baseline for 1998–99.

  This is a challenging target which will require the Department to find significant savings to cope with price increases, pay awards and other demands over the period. A thorough review of running cost baselines throughout the Department is currently in progress in order to ensure that resources are directed where they are most needed.

  As part of the CSR settlement on running costs, MAFF is required to agree with Treasury a set of service delivery targets and an aggregate efficiency target. This work is in hand and will form part of the Department's Public Service Agreement, a new feature of the post-CSR arrangements which will set out in a single published document the Department's aims and objectives, resources, targets and efficiency plans for the three years 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  Current: scheme
  Scheme expenditure (or programme expenditure as it is also known) includes non-CAP support and compensation payments to farmers (for example, under the agri-environment schemes) and MAFF's payments for work undertaken on its behalf by its Executive Agencies.

  The plans a——allow for additional funding over and above the 1998–99 baseline in the following areas:

  (i) food safety—a total of £3.9 million (plus £8.4 million in running costs—included in the Departmental running cost figures above) over the next three years to support work on protecting the public which will transfer to the Food Standards Agency, when established, and to help rebuild public confidence in the safety of the food supply;

  (ii) animal health—an extra £4.4/4.6/4.4 million for implementing the Krebs Report on badgers and bovine tuberculosis, additional TB testing and on-farm surveillance work related to foodborne zoonoses;

  (iii) countryside—an extra £7.6/14.3/19.5 million to fund improvements and enhancements to the agri-environment schemes as described in the Minister's statement on 29 July 1998, Official Report, column 349, including extra funds to enhance the payment rates under the Organic Aid scheme. In addition the sum available for new Countryside Stewardship agreements in 1999 will be raised by £1.0 million to £7.5 million.

  (iv) export promotion—£0.6/1.0/1.0 million to restore sums transferred from Food from Britain's core funding in 1996 to support the Sector Challenge scheme.

  Since the CSR settlement on scheme expenditure is insufficient to meet all the requirements for additional funding, the Department's plans allow for the following offsetting savings:

  (i) £0.0/-2.4/-3.5 million from the closure of the Nitrate Sensitive Areas scheme;

  158

  (ii) £-0.4/-0.9/-1.5 million from the closure of the Postgraduate Agricultural and Food Studentships Scheme to new applicants; and;

  (iii) £-1.0/-2.0/-3.0 million as a result of seeking to transfer to industry the responsibility for funding some of the MAFF research from which industry benefits directly.

  In addition to the Department's expenditure plans assume the transfer to industry of the cost of milk testing for brucellosis and Enzootic Bovine Leukosis in 2000 and extending the range of chargeable work for the inspection of plant imports.

  Capital
  The Department's capital spending plans allow for the following increases in funding compared with the current baseline:

  (i) flood defence—an extra £5.0/8.0/10.0 million in grant aid for flood and coastal defences;

  (ii) marine research vessel—additional provision of £0.4/11.5/11.6 million for the commissioning of a new vessel to replace the two aging vessels currently operated by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS);

  (iii) CAP administration—£2.6/3.4/1.5 million (plus an extra £15.5 million in running costs over the three years—included in the Departmental running cost figures above) to modernise the administration of CAP payments to farmers by setting up a new integrated IT system, incorporating a Geographical Information System;

  (iv) Objective 5 (b)—£12.4/13.3/0.3 million for legally binding commitments that must be met in respect of payments under the EU's rural development programme in Objective 5(b) areas;

  (v) fishing vessel decommissioning—new provision totalling
  £10.5 million over the three years towards restructuring of the
  fishing fleet, to complement the effort control arrangements already introduced.

  Under the new public expenditure arrangements MAFF, like other
  departments, is required to produce a Departmental Investment Strategy (DIS) setting out how its capital resources will be spent and managed over the next three years. The DIS will cover all aspects of the Department's capital budget, including planned expenditure on buildings and IT and the disposal of assets. On the latter the CSR settlement incorporates certain assumptions about assets disposal.These include the sale of the Covent Garden Market site in 2000–01, subject to the passage of enabling primary legislation, and the sale of the MAFF office site at Tolworth also in 2000–01.

  BSE

  Over the next three years the baseline for ring-fenced BSE expenditure by MAFF and the Intervention Board will fall by £194/223/230 million compared with 1998–99. This reduction assumes that there will be savings on the Over Thirty Month Scheme as a result of green rate adjustments, that the costs of some of the control measures will be recovered from the industry through charges and that the Calf Processing Aid Scheme will close. I am reviewing with colleagues the precise timing of some of these savings in the light of representations I have received from the NFU about the state of the UK farming industry.

  Despite the continued fall in the number of BSE cases overall expenditure remains high (£460–500 million a year) because of the precautionary measures that remain in place.

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

The Lord Bishop of Southwark
Thomas Frederick, Lord Bishop of Southwark—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Chichester and the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Care of the Mentally Handicapped
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the quality of care in the community for people with learning difficulties or mental handicaps.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, a recent inspection by the Department of Health's Social Services Inspectorate found that services for people with learning disabilities are more responsive to individuals' needs and wishes than they have ever been. Many people with learning disabilities now enjoy a good quality of life in the community, where previously their only choice would have been care in the old long-stay hospitals. The quality of services does, however, vary both within and between areas and we have initiated a programme of work to ensure that the local statutory authorities continue to improve the services they provide for people with learning disabilities.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, which contains some good news. Is the Minister aware of recent research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which shows that the majority of mentally handicapped people or those with learning disabilities still live with their families and an increasing number are surviving to old age and therefore are being cared for by elderly relatives whom they may well survive? Does the noble Baroness accept that many of these elderly relatives find it hard to provide that care, often do not receive the support that they need from social services, and are also deeply worried about what will happen when the relatives for whom they are caring survive them? What can the Minister say to these people who have spent their lives looking after dependent mentally handicapped relatives, both to reassure them about the care that is needed now to look after them and what will happen to those relatives who survive them?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am aware of the research to which the noble Baroness refers and also the immense contribution that is made by many carers who look after those who are mentally handicapped or
1810
who have learning disabilities at home. She rightly pinpoints the issue of older parents in particular, and their concerns. Since family carers play a crucial role in the lives of people with learning disabilities it is important that authorities plan ahead so that older carers can be given the assurance they need that their children will be cared for when they can no longer look after them and that crisis admissions to residential care, which can be so distressing, are avoided. As to general support for carers, last June the Government announced a wide review of measures to help carers. The National Strategy for Carers will bring together a range of initiatives designed to address carers' concerns and give them support. A study is currently being undertaken to establish how the problems that carers face can be tackled by new government initiatives and policies. The strategy will be ready for consultation early next year.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some local authorities still seem unaware that provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act apply as much to people who are mentally ill or handicapped as they do to the physically disabled? Is this a timely moment for a further circular about their statutory responsibilities?
Moreover, does my noble friend agree that one effective way of reducing the pressure on hospital beds is to increase the availability of adequate local services for chronically sick and disabled people generally?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend's longstanding commitment and contribution to the cause of the disabled is well known. He rightly points out the need for and advantages of sensitive and locally based services.
As regards provision for those with learning disabilities and the possibility of new guidance, we are currently funding an independent evaluation into the costs and outcomes of various forms of residential provision for people with learning disabilities. When we see the results of that, it will tell us whether we need to issue further guidance.
Lord Rix: My Lords, does the Minister agree that flexible short-term breaks and appropriate housing are essential elements in the long-term care of people with learning disabilities and their elderly carers? Can my noble friend inquire what has happened to the Disabled Persons and Carers (Short-Term Breaks) Bill which I introduced through your Lordships' House in 1996? It received all-party support, and since that time has lain alone and palely loitering in another place.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can think of other candidates for that description, but perhaps I should not go down that road.
The issues raised in the noble Lord's Private Member's Bill are important. They are important contributors to the ability of relatives caring for people with learning disabilities to continue in that role.

1811
Looking at support for carers will perhaps be a most useful element to address in the strategy. I am certain it is one of the issues that will feature in the report.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, on a related point, is the Minister aware of the problems and uncertainties that currently surround the commissioning of mental health services? I refer in particular to the provisions and responsibilities between commissioning by NHS regions, local authority social services and primary care groups. Will the noble Baroness's department issue clear guidance on the division of responsibilities in that area?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the guidance issued on national priorities was clearly focused on the responsibilities of both the health service and social services to work together, and to find mechanisms for working together whether through joint commissioning or pooled budgets, in order to provide the necessary cohesive services.
On the commissioning of mental health services, the mental health national service framework which is currently being drawn up will provide a template against which services can be commissioned and provided. It will be essential that health authorities, trusts and PCGs work together to manage that commissioning process.
With the introduction and establishment of primary care groups we have a unique opportunity for the key partners—they include social services and other branches of local authority services—to test new approaches to joint commissioning and more integrated provision.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, given the Government's official recognition that there is already a shortage of some 25,000 residential places for people with a mental handicap, is the Minister aware that the Government's excellent policy of encouraging a genuine range of provision is often thwarted at local level? In those circumstances, can the Government do anything directly to encourage new village communities for people with a mental handicap? They are in great demand and are cost-effective and care-effective.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord points out the need for an increasing number of residential places. An additional 11 per cent. was provided between 1994–95 and 1996–97, but we need still more. He rightly says that the Government's policy is that a range of options should be available. We have recently written to all health and local authorities reminding them that they should continue to offer that range of residential provision and respect the rights of individuals to make informed choices, including placements in village communities, wherever the preferred choice is likely best to meet their needs within acceptable costs.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, as we have reached nine minutes I am afraid that we must move on.

Agriculture: Discussions with NFU
2.50 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm Lord Monro of Langholm asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with the National Farmers Union about the present plight of agriculture.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, we hold regular meetings with the National Farmers Union. The Minister and I last met NFU representatives on 8th October when a wide range of issues was discussed as a follow-up to the list put forward by the NFU rally at the Labour Party Conference in Blackpool.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, is the Minister aware that throughout the countryside in the United Kingdom generally, but particularly in livestock areas, the rural economy is in crisis? Is he also aware that incomes have plummeted and that all the good work done by previous governments to enhance the countryside, the environment, wildlife and rural employment is gravely at risk? Does he appreciate that we cannot wait for the reform of the CAP? What action are the Government proposing to take in the next few weeks to stave off disaster?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are acutely aware of the serious difficulties facing all areas of the agricultural industry. We are not so aware of all the good work done by previous administrations. I assume that the noble Lord has in mind issues such as BSE and the beef ban. The situation is serious and we are looking at it most urgently. We are investigating what actions can be taken to mitigate it. Of course, that is not wholly for MAFF, which does not have funds to assist the sector further than the large amounts it already gives. Other departments are involved and it is a matter for the Government to decide on their priorities.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that his colleagues in the Scottish Office are having similar talks with the National Farmers Union of Scotland where the situation is every bit as dire? Many farmers in Scotland have not yet finished their wheat harvest and we are, after all, at the end of October.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, severe difficulties face all the nations of the United Kingdom. They are slightly worse in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales than in England. I believe that Ministers in the Scottish Office, which is well represented in this House, are currently holding talks to discuss the situation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Welsh farmers are going through a particularly difficult time? Is his department meeting the Welsh farmers' union? What action is being taken by the Welsh Office to help the Welsh farmers?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, yes, the situation in Wales is acute. My right honourable friend the Minister

1813
went to Wales in order to meet representatives of the Welsh farmers. We have had talks and the Welsh Office is involved in investigating the situation. There are in Wales more highland and fragile upland areas with sheep and similar farming, which is particularly affected by the present situation and did not benefit proportionately during the bonanza enjoyed by British farming from 1992 to 1995.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the Minister described the Government as considering the matter urgently. They have been considering it urgently for more than four months. Are they aware of the desperate situation in certain of the hill areas, including those in Wales, while they give no promise of real action? One thing they could do immediately would be to increase the headage in relation to sheep because many farmers cannot afford to send their sheep to market. They could also remove the necessary burden on abattoirs for killing sheep, which adds £8 to the cost of every lamb killed in this country. What do the Government intend to do in this urgent situation?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Government have properly been considering the situation seriously. Many departments are involved, including the Treasury. Some of the possible actions which would help farming will involve the co-operation—indeed, the approval—of the European Commission. It is not a case of providing one-off, quick help; we must view the whole situation to ascertain what strategy would be best for farming.
Lord Davis of Coity: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulties facing the British agricultural industry, but is it not the case that agriculture already receives more taxpayers' money than any other sector of the economy?
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Davis of Coity: Therefore, does it not follow that if more money is directed to agriculture less is likely to be directed to other areas of the productive sector?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is certainly the case that agriculture, although one of the smallest sectors, amounting to 1.1 per cent. of the economy, receives by far the greatest help; greater than any other sector of the economy. It receives two and a half times more than the next sector and nearly four times more than the whole of manufacturing. However, our view is that the importance of agriculture and the seriousness of the problems justify major aid. We believe in the long-term welfare of British agriculture.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, in the opinion of the Government, is the deplorable state of agriculture at the present time primarily the fault of interest rates and the Bank of England, or the CAP, or the undoubted efficiency of the British farmer?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, in looking at fault, one is looking at a most complex subject. What is particular
1814
about the present situation is that all the factors which can have a detrimental effect on a sector have affected agriculture at the same time. There is no doubt that the high rate of sterling is probably the most significant factor, and there occurred at the same time the secular decline in commodity prices throughout all sectors.

The National Lottery: Plans
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their present and future plans for the funds generated by the National Lottery.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we expect the National Lottery to raise £10.6 billion for good causes during the current licence period, which is £600 million above previous forecasts. The arts, sport, heritage and charities will each receive an additional £50 million and are each guaranteed 16⅔ per cent. of National Lottery revenues beyond 2001. The other £400 million will go to initiatives on health, education and the environment. We will publish a consultation document outlining our proposals next month. The New Opportunities Fund will inherit the millennium stream of funding after 2001
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree with the headline in the Guardian of 7th October, "Government raids lottery funds"? Does he further accept that many charities are expressing considerable concern about their future because of the Government's raid on the lottery funds?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I do not agree with the headline in the Guardian. The Government are not raiding any lottery funds; lottery funds are going to a wide range of good causes, including the arts, heritage, sport and charities, health, education and the environment. The National Lottery's Charities Board has a particular role above and beyond its monetary allocation in that we have charged it with bringing together volunteers and opportunities for volunteering throughout the range of lottery funding. It is already consulting on a strategic plan for that purpose.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is £3.62 billion still in the distribution fund which has not been distributed? I know that the Minister will say that that has been put to some use but, of that, nearly £1.54 billion has not been committed to any project at all. The fund is increasing by nearly £33.5 million per month which is hardly a satisfactory situation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not agree. The fact is that £4.8 billion has already been committed and only £1.5 billion remains to be committed. That is exactly what one would expect bearing in mind that there is still money to come in. Money is not drawn down before it is needed. It goes

1815
into a tax-free fund; it earns interest; the interest goes into the good causes; and the National Lottery Distribution Fund has already brought in £500 million for good causes. Therefore, we are not losing out. Nobody is losing out.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, given that the surplus on that fund is not immediately required and in view of the long list of beneficiaries which my noble friend announced, will he kindly consider whether agriculture might be added to that long list?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, are not health, education and the environment the responsibility of the Government? Was not the National Lottery set up to give money to matters which are not the responsibility of the Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the noble Earl arguing that health, education and the environment are solely the responsibility of the Government and that arts, sport, culture and heritage are not at all the responsibility of the Government? I challenge both views. The definition of "additionality", which is what the noble Earl is talking about, has not changed since before the election. Indeed, the last Prime Minister, Mr. Major, said after the election that he was considering whether lottery funds should be used to put sports teachers back into schools. That money is still additional to core government expenditure, as it always was.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is some criticism because some of the people on the board distributing lottery money are members of bodies in the field of the arts and so on which are receiving the money? Is it not the case too that there is some legitimate criticism that some of the more affluent areas of the United Kingdom are receiving very large sums of money from that fund whereas some of the poorest areas are being almost ignored?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have not heard any allegations that any members of the distribution boards have been acting in any way improperly. If my noble friend has any such evidence, I am sure that he will wish to give it to me. But the whole purpose of the broadening of the distribution of lottery funds is to make sure that social needs which are additional to core government expenditure, which affects poor people as well as richer people, should benefit from lottery funds.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, will the Minister tell us something of the new criteria for the funding of film production which is expected from the new film council, rather than the distribution of lottery moneys being decided by the Arts Council, some of which has been criticised in the past? What does the
1816
Minister expect to come from the new participation of the film council in terms of the performance of British films?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very glad to have that question but I am not glad to have it now. As the noble Viscount knows, we are consulting on our proposals for film funding. We have received responses from various parts of the industry. They are generally in favour of the proposed film council but the details of that have yet to be announced. We shall make the public and parliament aware as soon as we have reached a final conclusion.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House what opportunities were given to the distributing bodies to put forward their case before announcing the share of lottery money currently given to the Millennium Commission which, after 2001, is to go to the New Opportunities Fund?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the distribution bodies are in constant contact with Ministers and officials in my department. There is no inhibition whatever on them expressing their views. But ultimately the Government must decide between them.

Headship Qualifications: Progress
3.5 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the progress being made with the national professional qualification for headship.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, this Government acknowledge the crucial role played by heads in our drive to raise standards in schools. Last week we announced our plans to establish a new national college for school leadership and that £25 million would be available next year for the training of new heads and to improve the skills of existing heads.
Meanwhile, 4,900 candidates are currently undergoing training, of which some 80 have already qualified. A number have been appointed to headship posts. The new qualification has been subject to careful evaluation throughout its development. The feedback has been positive in showing the training has developed candidates' management and leadership skills. I believe the qualification is well on track.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the warm welcome which has been given to that long overdue training qualification? However, is there not a danger that its requirement for applicants for headships may be implemented too soon, having regard to the large number of early retirements which have been taken by head teachers? In addition, will my noble friend give an assurance that all the

1817
teachers' unions are being properly and consistently consulted on all the changes that are taking place in relation to that matter?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am aware of the warm welcome which has been given to this new qualification. Indeed, an evaluation carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research endorses the fact that many people are strongly in favour of that new approach.
The teachers' unions have been consulted about the new arrangements. The Government are well aware of the need to monitor the introduction of the new qualification. They will not introduce a statutory requirement for all head teachers to have that qualification until they are confident that the pool of teachers available with it is sufficiently large to meet the vacancies for head teachers.
Lord Tope: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is still the Government's intention to make the NPQH compulsory before the next general election? Will she agree that rather than backing down on that commitment, it would be better to take practical steps to make headship a much more attractive proposition, particularly at primary school level?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I confirm that the Government intend to introduce this qualification by the year 2002, before the end of this Parliament. I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said about the need to do all we can to encourage good teachers to become head teachers. The Government are looking at various approaches to that end. They have also asked the School Teachers' Pay Review Body in particular to consider the position for primary head teachers where there is a greater shortage than at secondary level.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, does the Minister agree with an editorial in The Times last week that, while school heads must indeed be properly trained in personnel and budgetary management, everything depends on the job description "Head Teachers" and that nothing must diminish the role of teaching if we are to have heads who retain the respect of their fellow teachers and their pupils?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. The new training has four modules to it, some of which are concerned with resource allocations, strategic leadership and management matters; but there is also a module which deals with teaching and learning. It is extremely important that head teachers are a model for the rest of their staff in relation to those questions of teaching and learning.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in applying the welcome new policy of training head teachers to do a job which has changed out of all recognition in the past 15 years, will the Government avoid falling into the trap of making requirements for primary heads of single entry forms the same as for heads of multiple-entry secondary schools?
1818
Will they further consider, in those big multiple entry schools, recreating something like the bursarship which existed in the private sector, so that some academic responsibility can remain with academically qualified head teachers?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is the case that the job of being the head of a small primary school is rather different to the job of being the head in a large comprehensive school. The training programmes devised under the new scheme will take that into account. Indeed, each applicant will be assessed according to their existing qualifications and experience. The programme that they follow will be modelled according to their specific needs.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend consider it desirable that those employed by Ofsted to inspect our schools should possess or be encouraged to possess that qualification?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for everybody who carries out Ofsted inspections to go through a training designed for head teachers. However, I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is desirable for many Ofsted inspection teams to include people with experience as heads or deputy heads.

Northern Ireland Bill
3.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Schedule 2 [Excepted matters]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 43, leave out lines 24 to 26.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 220 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 221 to 223 and 253A. Members of the Committee will see that several of these amendments are tabled in my name, though Amendment No. 222 is in the name of the Minister. At this point I propose only to refer to the amendments in my name.
Amendment No. 220 is concerned with ministerial functions. The whole of this schedule relates to which functions are to remain excepted matters; that is to say, matters which will remain permanently under the

1819
control of Westminster and Whitehall and Ministers of the United Kingdom Government. The amendment addresses paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 2 which states:
"functions of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Northern Ireland Ministers or the Northern Ireland departments, or functions in relation to Northern Ireland of any Minister of the Crown",
shall not be excepted matters; that is to say, they shall be the responsibility at once of the Assembly and the Executive in Northern Ireland.
I agree that some of the functions of the Northern Ireland Ministers need to be transferred now. Clearly, it will also be within the responsibility of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to distribute the portfolios of the Northern Ireland departments among their colleagues in the Executive. It is right that they should do so. But there are also some functions, particularly of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, which should not be open to variation by the Executive or the Assembly. Apart from anything else, they are the functions laid on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister by the Belfast agreement. The wording of that paragraph suggests that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister could vary even their own functions as laid down in the agreement with the permission of the Assembly, which is not desirable.
The provision also says that the new administration in Northern Ireland will be responsible for,
"functions in relation to Northern Ireland of any Minister of the Crown".
I believe that means Whitehall Ministers, Ministers of the United Kingdom Government. It does not seem to be right that the Assembly should have responsibility, as a result of that provision, for the functions of United Kingdom Ministers, even in relation to Northern Ireland. One can see all sorts of difficulties arising over a period of time if that were so and the Assembly was attempting to keep the United Kingdom Ministers out of their bailiwick by restricting their functions through the use of the power given to them by that provision.
Amendment No. 221 relates to paragraph 1(b) which refers to,
"property belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department".
There are a number of government departments—Whitehall departments—whose writs will still run in Northern Ireland. They occupy property at the moment over there for the purposes of their duties and will need to retain it. Obvious examples are the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. Customs and Excise is intended to hand certain responsibilities to the Executive and the Assembly, but the bulk of its responsibilities for tax-raising and so forth will remain answerable to the Westminster Parliament, UK Ministers and the Treasury. The property which they occupy for the purposes of carrying out their functions should remain the property of the United Kingdom Government and not be transferred to the government of Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 223 transfers to the Northern Ireland administration responsibility for the foreshore and the seabed or subsoil or their natural resources. That presumably refers, among other things, to oil or gas which may be found in the seabed off Northern Ireland. I am not sure that it is wise to have a separate regime, should that eventuality occur, for the waters of the United Kingdom off Northern Ireland from that off the other areas of the United Kingdom.
But other questions arise which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. The first is in connection with contamination in the Irish Sea. At times there has been trouble from the fact that waste has been dumped in the Irish Sea and caused contamination. Presumably responsibility is being slid across to the Assembly and the Executive for dealing with that contamination, even though it arises from the actions of the United Kingdom government of many years ago and, in some cases, the actions of the Ministry of Defence which dropped material into the Irish Sea.
My last point relates to undersea cables and connections. A proposal was made some time ago for an electrical interconnector between Northern Ireland and Great Britain so as to assist the supply of electricity to Northern Ireland and, hopefully, make it cheaper. That would now become partially the responsibility of the Assembly and the Executive. I do not object to that, but would like to be clear that that is what paragraph 1(c) of Schedule 2 in fact does. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must tell the Committee that, as Amendments Nos. 221 and 222 are also being spoken to, if Amendment No. 221 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 222.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is a great relief after a whole string of government amendments—and we are about to have a whole string more—to have an amendment from my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench. I have no doubt—indeed we have had warning thereof—that there will be vast numbers of amendments again at Report stage and, who knows, probably at Third Reading as well.
As to this group of amendments, I, too, find it extremely odd that there is an exception to the excepted matters in paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 2, namely,
"functions in relation to Northern Ireland of any Minister of the Crown".
The Secretary of State is "any Minister of the Crown"—I suspect that the current one is a rather special Minister of the Crown but, nonetheless, she is a Minister of the Crown—and not a Northern Ireland Minister. What on earth will the Assembly do mucking around with her functions?
I was extremely confused by paragraph 1(c),
"the foreshore or the seabed",
which my noble friend Lord Cope referred. I look a little further and, in Schedule 3, paragraph 4, "Reserved Matters", we find "the foreshore and the seabed". You cannot have both, surely.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall be very brief. Surely the remarkable speech of my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley shows that there is a need for definition and clarification. There are so many questions that arise that need to be dealt with. On the question of definition, it is all very well to use the word "functions" without any definition at all but it is not very acceptable. Some functions—and I am not going to take time—are clearly within the remit of the United Kingdom Parliament and other functions are within the remit of the Assembly.
As to the matter of the seabed—which is a very difficult question in any form of international contract, international agreement, territorial claims, and so on and so forth—the Government need to clarify exactly what paragraph 1(c) means. If the Government are not prepared to, or are unable to define and clarify—I am sure they possibly are—then I shall support this amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I wholeheartedly agree that there is a need for clarity in respect of those matters which will remain permanently under the control of Westminster. It is very important to establish a clear understanding of those matters because, through no fault of the Minister and his colleagues, we are told that clauses as yet unseen will be brought forward, perhaps at Report stage. That is not a criticism of the hard-working draftsmen or the Minister supervising them. I am sure the Minister will ensure that in the course of drafting the various new clauses and amendments great care will be taken so that they do not conflict with the position as we perhaps understood it, even when we finished last evening.
I am glad that mention has been made of the waterways. It is important to ensure that, for example, the control of the foreshore is not overlooked. In some places in Northern Ireland, in certain waterways, the international boundary does not take the expected line of mid-distance between two portions of land. In some cases the international boundary is on the high water mark on the other side of the inlet.
Lord Dubs: Yesterday I wrote to a number of your Lordships giving some background information as to the Government's thinking on some matters which we discussed yesterday and today. I learned this morning that some of your Lordships did not receive that letter until earlier today. I apologise that it was not with you yesterday before we started the proceedings.
It may be helpful if, before I deal with the detail of the amendments by the Government and other noble Lords to Schedules 2 and 3, I give a brief account of our general approach to these schedules. This will set the context in a more helpful manner.
Our primary concern, here as everywhere else in the Bill, is to give effect to the agreement. Several passages of the strand one section in particular set out the broad framework we are to follow. They are drafted against the background of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which is still in force, though overlaid by the provisions for direct rule.
1822
Paragraph 3 makes clear that the Assembly will exercise full legislative and executive authority in respect of those matters currently within the responsibility of the six Northern Ireland government departments. Those responsibilities correspond very largely to matters that are at present transferred by virtue of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, as it has been amended.
Paragraph 27 provides that the Assembly will have authority to legislate in reserved areas with the approval of the Secretary of State and subject to parliamentary control.
Accordingly, our starting point has to be the 1973 divisions. But some tidying up has been required. It is the nature of the model that we have chosen that new subjects for legislation arise in the transferred field. In one or two such cases where the matters concerned fall naturally to be handled at national level, and in one or two other cases where transferred matters have come under UK-wide legislative regimes, we have moved matters into the reserved or excepted categories.
The reserved category includes a number of matters which the agreement envisages as being suitable for transfer in the fields of policing and justice. But not all reserved matters are, or were in 1973, envisaged as suitable for transfer. A number of factors have led us, as they did our predecessors, to prefer the reserved to the excepted field where a decision has been needed.
It may at times be useful for the Assembly to legislate on some of these matters, especially where there is existing Northern Ireland legislation. Such legislation would be subject to the consent of the Secretary of State and the system of parliamentary control set out in Clause 13 of the Bill.
Putting matters in Schedule 3 also preserves the flexibility to transfer parts of them, in circumstances unforeseen at present, so long as there is general agreement at Westminster and in the Assembly. Under the Scotland Bill, there is a greater flexibility to change the constitutional categorisation of matters; under our Bill, there is no mechanism for moving matters out of the excepted field.
It is right to stress here the point I have previously made to your Lordships about the inevitable differences between our approach and that of the Scots. Whereas they start with a clean sheet, we are building on a legal foundation of arrangements for devolution in Northern Ireland that goes back to 1921. The dissimilarity in our starting points shows through in the key matter of drafting style; that is, the way in which matters to be reserved are set out in the Scotland Bill and the listing of excepted and reserved matters in our Bill.
Schedule 5 to the Scotland Bill sets out in substantial detail the matters to be reserved. Schedules 2 and 3 to the Northern Ireland Bill, on the other hand, approach the matter in a broader brush way that is consistent with the approach in the 1973 Act. It is right that this should be so for policy reasons. The agreement is set against the backdrop of the 1973 legislation.
It is also desirable in legal terms because the Northern Ireland system has operated in this context—and in particular the legislation has been drafted consistently

1823
with it—and a change in approach could throw up many uncertainties. But these differences in approach mean that a comparison between the two Bills may sometimes be deceptive.
I hope this explanation may be of some assistance to your Lordships in fathoming what may at times seem an arbitrary division. Even against the principles I have outlined, the categorisation of particular matters is not always clear cut, and we shall of course, as always, listen with care to your Lordships' views.
I turn to the detail of the amendments. There are a large number of government amendments.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Before he comes to the detail, I wonder whether he will deal with one point. He has given an extremely clear explanation of the Government's thinking on what is to be reserved and what is to be excepted and the difference from the Scottish devolution settlement. In view of the similarity—in fact, the almost identical nature—of the legislation dealing with gender discrimination, race discrimination and disability discrimination in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland, I do not understand, from what he said, what is the impediment to putting those subjects either in Schedule 2 or in Schedule 3 so that there can be some protection on the statute book where there are core equality rights. His explanation on matters of principle does not explain that. I know that we dealt with it yesterday, but without the benefits of the explanation today, I wonder whether he can deal with that point before he comes to the detail.
Lord Dubs: I should have thought that the explanation I have given today reinforces the arguments I used yesterday in favour of the scheme adopted in the Bill as regards equality legislation. It is partly history and it is partly the Good Friday agreement. As regards history, as I argued yesterday, given that responsibility for the departments is a matter that has been transferred to the assembly, it is right and proper that the equality commission, which has an oversight of the way in which some of those departments operate, should also come under the assembly. I should have thought that that is fully in keeping with what I have just said about the general approach.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It is my fault. I am not dealing with the equality commission at all. I am dealing with the state of the substantive law. I am putting it to the Minister that there is no difference in substance between sex discrimination law on this side of the Irish Sea and sex discrimination law in Northern Ireland. The same is true of race discrimination, and the same is true of disability discrimination. That is all post the 1973 constitution. It is not dealt with in the Good Friday agreement. What I do not understand is why, given the identical nature of legislation on both sides of the Irish Sea, the Government do not think it necessary to reserve the fabric, scope and content of that law so that it is in complete harmony on both sides of the Irish Sea.
Lord Dubs: I do not wish to brush aside the noble Lord's argument, but I feel we have been here before over the past three Committee days. However, I shall certainly do my best to deal with the point.
We are dealing with departments, the work of which comes under the assembly. We are then dealing with an equality commission which is part of the body of law to which the noble Lord referred. The equality commission oversees the way in which those departments carry out some of their functions. It seemed to us wrong in principle that that oversight should be carried out from London, thereby weakening the responsibility of the Assembly to legislate for these matters in Northern Ireland. That would be an attempt to keep a grip on the Assembly when what we are trying to do is to give the Assembly a certain independence in these matters so that it can exercise full responsibility. Otherwise, it is still being tethered to Whitehall.
I should have thought that, in the interests of giving the Assembly freedom of action on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, it is right and proper that it has that freedom as regards its responsibilities. I am not sure that I can persuade the noble Lord. All I can say is that that is the argument as the Government see it. I appreciate that he takes a different point of view. I am not sure that we are going to be able to persuade each other—at least I may still be able to persuade him although I am afraid that he is not going to be able to persuade the Government—but I have listened carefully to his arguments and I shall go on doing so.
I turn to the detail of the amendments. There are a large number of government amendments. However, a large proportion of them are purely technical and are intended to improve or clarify the drafting to bring definitions up to date where technology has moved on, and to improve consistency. There are some on which I shall touch in rather more detail.
Amendments Nos. 220, 221 and 222 would have the effect of moving a number of issues into the excepted field from the transferred and reserved fields. Amendment No. 220 would except the functions of the First and Deputy First Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers as well as the functions in relation to Northern Ireland of any Minister of the Crown. I am not sure that I really understand the noble Lord's intention in this amendment since the functions of Northern Ireland Ministers and departments could not be excepted matters. But the Committee will note that the Government are bringing forward Amendment No. 253, which will reserve the conferral of functions of a Minister of the Crown in relation to Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 221 would except Crown and government property, whereas we consider it right that, for the most part, it should be a reserved matter. As I said in my opening remarks, there are a number of areas where we have preferred the reserved field to the excepted field, and this is one such area. However, government Amendments Nos. 222 and 253A are relevant to this point since they provide that Crown property used by the armed forces of the Crown and the Ministry of Defence police will be an excepted matter. This is in line with the exception of both the armed

1825
forces of the Crown and the Ministry of Defence police in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2. Amendment No. 253A also has the effect of ensuring that the property of the Northern Ireland departments is a transferred matter. We think that anything other than that would place an undesirable fetter on the Assembly.
Finally in this group, Amendment No. 223 would except the foreshore, seabed and subsoil and their natural resources. Again, this is a matter where we consider it appropriate to allow for the possibility of the Assembly being able to legislate, with the Secretary of State's consent. This amendment would also have the effect of casting doubt on the reservation of the foreshore and seabed and other matters in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3. I appreciate that the categorisation is not always clear, but, as I have said, putting matters in the reserved field does not necessarily mean that we consider them suitable for transfer. However, it does allow us a little more flexibility.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the specific questions that were asked during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked whether the important functions of the First and Deputy First Minister provided for in the Belfast agreement are transferred under the Bill. The answer is, no. Government Amendments Nos. 243A and 282A are drafted to ensure that the Assembly cannot do away with any of the important functions of the First and Deputy First Minister as conferred under the Bill.
I was asked about Ministers of the Crown. Amendment No. 253 makes conferring the functions on Ministers of the Crown a reserved matter. As regards property, government Amendment No. 253A makes UK government property a reserved matter. As regards the foreshore, the seabed and so on, that is reserved in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked a question about boundaries at sea. Under Clause 6, the Assembly can legislate for Northern Ireland. Under Clause 80(1), this extends to so much of the internal waters and territorial sea of the UK as are adjacent to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 214, which was agreed yesterday, allows Her Majesty by Order in Council to prescribe the boundaries of Northern Ireland waters, so there can be no doubt about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about contamination at sea and submarine cables. The intended reservation, not exception, of the foreshore, seabed and so on, aims to allow the Assembly to legislate for them so far as this does not deal with other excepted matters. The Secretary of State will then be able to exercise control over this.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked some questions about paragraph 17. Despite the exception, the Assembly can only confer functions within its legislative competence. Paragraph 17, as we propose it should be amended, will prevent it from interfering with the functions of Ministers set out in the Bill. As for the conferral of functions on a Minister of the Crown, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred, even in the transferred field that will, under a later amendment, Amendment No. 253, be a reserved matter and so will need consent.
1826
I think that I have dealt with all the points that were raised. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Before the noble Lord sits down, I am afraid that I wish to press him further on those matters which are or should be excepted. I think it would be understood by these Benches, and it is the Government's obvious wish, that international obligations prevent us being able to devolve such matters as must by definition be excepted. So when he replied to my noble friend just now on questions of equality, whether sex, disability or race relations, is he absolutely satisfied that in devolving to the Northern Ireland Assembly—quite unlike Scotland—the ability to vary that legislation, the Government are in compliance with their international obligations such as the international covenant on civil and human rights? Taking off from that, even if the Government are in compliance with international obligations on all these equality matters, how can it be right to say—and I am afraid we have to press this—that in Scotland those are matters for the British Parliament to decide? We have good protection of equality in British law, and we have decided that that shall continue to obtain in Scotland. But in Northern Ireland, the Assembly, if it wishes—and this should be understood by people who have worked so hard to stop discrimination on disability and also sex discrimination in Northern Ireland—can potentially undo it. I want to be clear whether it is the Government's intention that the Northern Ireland Assembly, unlike the Scottish Parliament, could undo the provisions of British law that look after sex discrimination, disability and race relations. Is it really the Government's intention that the Northern Ireland Assembly can, international covenants permitting, undo those if it wishes?
Lord Dubs: As regards international obligations, clearly, if the Assembly has the discretion to legislate in areas where there are international obligations, it will have to do so in the light of those obligations, as does this Parliament. As I said at an earlier stage, international obligations will be paramount and all that the Assembly does will have to be in line with them. If the devolved Assembly attempted to contravene the international obligations of the United Kingdom, then Clauses 12, 5 and 20 allow the Secretary of State to prevent it so that it is not an unfettered power, provided that international obligations are at stake.
As regards other obligations not connected with international obligations, I suppose I could turn the question round and say to the noble Lord that it might well be that Westminster weakened the equality laws. The noble Lord assumes that only the Northern Ireland Assembly would wish to weaken them. I do not think that that is necessarily the right assumption. I repeat that if we want the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate properly and effectively on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland there need to be known parameters. The noble Lord seeks to limit the scope within those parameters and I say, and the Government say, that we have every confidence that the Assembly will handle things properly. We shall give it the freedom to do so.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am the first to accept that the Northern Ireland constitution emerging here does not have to be on all fours with that of Scotland. The Minister made the case very well. It is a different case and the constitution or the rules we are constructing for the Northern Ireland Assembly derive from the Good Friday agreement. However, I am quite clear that there is no drive or imperative in the Good Friday agreement to say that the Northern Ireland Assembly should be on a completely different basis from Scotland when it comes to the question of varying the standards set by the Westminster Parliament on equality. Why is that? Why do the Government want to give the Northern Ireland Assembly powers which the Scottish parliament does not have in this respect?
Lord Dubs: As I said earlier, the historical basis for the way we are approaching the Northern Ireland Assembly powers is different from that which applies to Scotland where there is not that sort of historical basis. We have moved on accordingly. After all, we have a body of legislative practice which is based upon the Northern Ireland situation going back to Stormont and before, and we have tried to proceed in the Bill in conformity with that as far as possible.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I do not want to bore the Committee any more on this subject today. However, I wish to put one question, if I may, to the Minister. We ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1976, three years after the Northern Ireland Constitution Act was passed. That covenant obliges us to secure equal protection of the law without discrimination throughout the United Kingdom. The Government must know from their legal advisers that that is the obligation imposed by the covenant and therefore they must know that the Assembly will have no power to pass legislation to weaken the equality law because that would lead to unequal protection throughout the country. If that is so, why on earth are the Government not protecting this subject either by putting it into the excepted category or into the reserved category rather than waiting for some ghastly political row in 10 years' time—heaven forbid—in which the Minister has to use an over-ride power because we have not produced the right schedule to the Bill now?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I believe I have answered that question more than once today. The Government's position is clear. The noble Lord does not agree with the Government's position, I think that is also fairly obvious to everyone who is listening. We have taken the view that the Assembly has to have powers and has to act within the transferred area. We regard these powers as being more properly within that area.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I accept the Government's position. I accept the thrust of the argument. I accept that the whole idea is that the Assembly should have the greatest freedom to legislate, but I am still concerned about the functions. I believe, though I am not sure, that the noble Lord was saying
1828
that the functions could be retrieved by reference to previous legislation or from the Belfast agreement. If it is one or the other, or both, then there can be no objection to seeking to define them at some later stage of the Bill. If they are not derived from the Belfast agreement or from previous legislation, there is all the more reason why they should be clarified and defined.
Unless some attempt is made to define those functions, it will be a source of trouble without doubt. If the situation is so plain from previous legislation and from the Belfast agreement, it would be very helpful if the Government could consider seeking to formulate the functions before some later stage of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his patience. I accept the thrust of his argument, but I am still a bit foxed about paragraph 1(c) and the oil position. I do not think it is at all clear how that will work out in practice.
Lord Dubs: I am not sure I can help the noble Lord, much as I would wish to be able to do so. If I understand his argument correctly, he would like some elaboration of what we mean by the functions of the various Ministers indicated. My immediate response is that the functions which the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would have in the context of the Belfast agreement and the powers that are being transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly would cover the particular responsibilities attaching to those posts as well as to the Ministers of Northern Ireland departments.
I am not sure how useful it would be to spell that out in more detail. I would have thought that in one sense it is fairly clearly understood. After all, the functions of Ministers of the Crown in relation to British Government matters are not spelt out as far as I am aware. Yet they are readily understood in relation to their statutory and other powers and responsibilities. So, although I would like to help the noble Lord, I do not think I am able to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, made a "final" contribution—at least for today—on the matter of responsibility for equality. The noble Lord and his colleague on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, seemed to be straying on to the subject matter of Amendment No. 224, so perhaps we shall not need to debate that amendment when we reach it.
These matters have been the responsibility of Northern Ireland Office departments. Legislation on fair employment has been Northern Ireland legislation and, therefore, under the agreement, falls into either the reserved or the transferred category as a result rather than into the excepted category.
My amendments relate particularly to functions of Ministers of the Crown—that is, Westminster Ministers—and to the property of departments of the Crown—that is, Westminster departments—in Northern Ireland. Why are those potentially to become the responsibility of the Assembly and the Executive in Northern Ireland? I accept that, as the Minister said, the amendments ensure that both the functions and the property are in the reserved category rather than

1829
the transferred category. However, essentially the reserved category covers matters which at some point could be transferred.
I regard it as unthinkable that the functions of the Treasury Minister responsible for the Inland Revenue should ever be transferred to the Assembly and the devolved government. I also regard it as unthinkable that the property from which the Inland Revenue functions in Northern Ireland as it collects income tax and goes about its other business there should ever be transferred to the Northern Ireland government. To me, those are essentially matters which should remain with the Whitehall/Westminster Government. Therefore, they should be in the excepted category. To put them into the reserved category is to say that at some time in the future the Government may want to transfer them.
That not only seems to me to be wrong—I do not think that they are ever likely to be transferred—but also has the danger that it might encourage some people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere to think that those matters might be transferred at some point; that there might be a separate taxation regime and that we might move to a different structure. There are people who say that taxation in Northern Ireland should be run in such a way as to match the taxation in the Republic of Ireland in every respect. Comparisons need to be made. Indeed, we shall draw attention to them later because one needs to have regard to them, but the idea that the Inland Revenue will be run from Ireland seems wrong.
I have used the Inland Revenue as only one example—although I think it a good example. Other central government departments would similarly be covered, but the Inland Revenue provides a clear example of a power and a function which should not be transferred and which should remain in the excepted category.
If the Minister will consider the matter further, I shall not press the amendment today. However, it seems to me that there is a real point to be answered which he has not yet really addressed.
Lord Dubs: I should like to make just one further comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has said. He suggested that everything that is in the reserved category is in that category with a view to it becoming transferred at some point in the future. I think that I made it clear earlier this afternoon and on other occasions that that is not necessarily so. One advantage of responsibilities and functions being in the reserved category is that, with the Secretary of State's consent, the Northern Ireland Assembly can legislate upon them. That is useful additional flexibility in our approach. If a matter were excepted, the Northern Ireland Assembly would not be able to play any part in considering it. It is an advantage of the reserved category that that is possible without necessarily saying that the matter will eventually be transferred.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I think it unlikely that the United Kingdom Government would wish the Assembly to pass any law relating to the Inland Revenue and its
1830
property. However, we have discussed this matter for long enough this afternoon and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 43, line 29, at end insert ("(other than property used for the purposes of the armed forces of the Crown or the Ministry of Defence Police)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 43, line 34, leave out from ("relations,") to ("but") in line 35 and insert ("including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Communities (and their institutions) and other international organisations, and international development assistance and co-operation,").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 224 modifies the list of matters at the beginning of paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 which are defined as being included in the exception for "international relations". Our original definition was based on the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Your Lordships may recognise that the new one is based on the definition in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Bill.
Amendment No. 226 alters the definitions of matters which are taken out of the international relations exception by virtue of paragraph 3(b) and (c) of Schedule 2. As it relates to North/South and East/West bodies, the amendment reflects earlier changes to the Bill; it also makes absolutely clear, as on reflection we think is necessary in drafting terms, that legislation concerning implementation bodies as envisaged in the agreement is not an excepted matter, which would take it outside the legislative competence of the Assembly.
The final part of the amendment again reflects a move towards the drafting of the Scotland Bill from the 1973 Act, making clear the Assembly's competence to legislate to observe international obligations, and those arising under the human rights convention and under Community law.
The first limb of Amendment No. 227, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is similar to the final part of our amendment, Amendment No. 226, so I can say that we accept that part of the amendment in principle and are grateful to the noble Lord. The second part of the noble Lord's amendment would remove from the exception assistance given to the Secretary of State by the devolved institutions in respect of the observance of international obligations and those arising under the ECHR or European Community law. We are again in sympathy with the principle but are advised that under the terms of our Bill this part of the amendment is unnecessary. According to our advice, no further provision is required to ensure that the Assembly will be able to confer and that Ministers and departments will be able to exercise functions which are exercisable in ways that assist the Crown in relation to international relations. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel it unnecessary to press his amendment.
Amendment No. 225 was discussed previously along with a related amendment to Clause 1. On that occasion, the proposed amendment to Clause 1 was resisted on the proper grounds that it would have changed the agreed wording which had been set out in the Belfast agreement, but I undertook to reflect on the points made by noble Lords in respect of that amendment.
As noble Lords are aware, the Belfast agreement for the first time unites the British and Irish Governments in their recognition that the future constitutional status of Northern Ireland can be changed only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. This has also enabled the two governments to agree to address one another by their favoured titles for the first time; namely "the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and the "Government of Ireland". These titles were set out in the British-Irish agreement which was sent to every house in Northern Ireland as an annex to the Belfast agreement. However, the Government have made it clear that, where appropriate, we shall still refer to the "Republic of Ireland" if that is necessary to avoid any misunderstanding about the geographical place which is being described.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, which deals with the surrender of fugitive offenders, is one such case where it is important that there is no misunderstanding. It is in our view clear that that paragraph is intended to refer to the movement of offenders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Nevertheless, in view of your Lordships' comments and for the avoidance of all possible doubt, I am glad to say that we propose to accept the noble Lord's amendment. That does not, of course, alter the understanding in relation to the titles of the two governments. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I hope that the Minister will forgive me but I am not quite clear whether he was referring to taking on board the point made by my noble friends Lord Monson and Lord Cooke in their amendment, which relates to what he said about fugitive offenders. I am not in the business of snubbing the Irish Government, but the Minister explained at an earlier stage, and repeated it just now, that the terminology and the titles of the two sovereign states were reached by agreement as a kind of deal—I do not say an unworthy one—in the drafting of the agreement.
However, were the Irish Government consulted about the contradiction in the line in the schedule that my noble friends are attempting to amend in which the term "Northern Ireland and Ireland" is used in the one sentence? As the Minister will know, the constitution of the Republic of Ireland lays claim to the whole island of Ireland and, therefore, it is difficult to understand how either Government can condone such a contradiction.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: When we were debating an earlier amendment on the first day of the Committee stage I made it clear that I support Amendment No. 225.
1832
As the Minister said, it is necessary in order to make paragraph 3(a) of the schedule clear. I accept what the Minister has said about the other amendments.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We strongly support Amendment No. 226. I am most grateful for that large crumb which has fallen from the table. I am also most grateful that the spirit of our amendment has been accepted. The great advantage of it—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—is that it means that under Schedule 2 the obligations contained, for example, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the various discrimination conventions will all be excepted matters in so far as they are international obligations. On that basis, we will not find it necessary to move Amendment No. 227.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I have one comment to make about Amendment No. 224. We believe that the change in wording is appropriate as all the items specified are part of Westminster's responsibilities on behalf of the UK as a whole. However, there appears to me to be a drafting error. Perhaps I have read it wrongly, but it seems to me that the amendment deletes the penultimate word "but" which is needed to make sense of the exceptions that follow. As I said, it is only a drafting point. Nevertheless, I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether I am right or wrong in that respect.
Lord Dubs: I do not think that I can comment instantly on that point. I shall have to think about it. However, in the meantime, I shall deal with the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. The answer is yes. The Irish Government were consulted and they expressed their agreement with the approach indicated where any doubt arises. Therefore, I do not believe that there is any disagreement between this Government and the Irish Government on that point.
I turn now to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I should point out that Amendment No. 226 makes it clear that implementation of such international obligations is a transferred matter.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the Minister. However, I take it that the Government will remain responsible with their override powers if the international treaty obligations are breached by the Assembly.
Lord Dubs: Yes, that is correct. As I indicated earlier, the Secretary of State has such a power and it is set out in the Bill.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Before we vote on the amendment, I should be grateful to know whether I am wrong in thinking that Amendment No. 224 will delete the word "but", which is required to make sense of the wording.
Lord Dubs: I am advised that the noble Lord is not right and that the word "but" remains in the way that the amendment has been drafted. That is the advice I have just received. It is difficult for me to go into more detail here and now, but that is my present advice.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 43, line 36, after ("and") insert ("the Republic of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 43, line 38, leave out from ("arrangement") to end of line 45 and insert ("entered into—

("(i) by a person participating, by reason of a nomination under section (North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council), in a meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council; or

(ii) by, or in relation to the activities of, any body established for implementing, on the basis mentioned in paragraph 11 of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement, policies agreed in the North-South Ministerial Council;

(c) observing and implementing international obligations, obligations under the Human Rights Convention and obligations under Community law.
In this paragraph "the Human Rights Convention" means the following as they have effect for the time being in relation to the United Kingdom—

(a) the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950; and

(b) any Protocols to that Convention which have been ratified by the United Kingdom.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 44, line 1, after ("realm;") insert ("trading with the enemy;").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 228 and 271 clarify that trading with the enemy and other defence-related trade are excepted matters and are not included in the more general reservation of trade in Schedule 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 44, line 1, leave out from ("Crown") to ("; the") in line 2.
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 261. Amendment No. 229 refers to paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 which deals with the Armed Forces of the Crown. The amendment suggests that any matter within paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the Act should come under Westminster rather than under the Northern Ireland administration. Those matters are the powers given to the Armed Forces of the Crown when involved in the "maintenance of public order". It seems to me that the Armed Forces of the Crown should always remain under the direction of the Westminster
1834
Government—that is, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Westminster Government—even when they are engaged in the maintenance of public order.
We all know that the Armed Forces of the Crown had, of necessity, to do a great deal in support of the civil power over the past 30 years. We also remember that direct rule, and the changes in the government of Northern Ireland nearly 30 years ago, came about as a consequence of British troops being employed on the streets and the necessity therefore—as it was seen then—for Westminster to take control of the situation rather than leaving it in the control of the then Stormont government. It seems to me that by leaving as initially a reserved matter the maintenance of public order when carried out by the Armed Forces, and the powers which the latter use in that respect, we are going against that and permitting the Armed Forces to be used by the devolved government or at least controlled in part by the devolved government.
There is another point which arises from this schedule. We have been told that we must be careful about quoting from the Scotland Bill as a model for the wording of this legislation. Nevertheless, it refers to the Armed Forces of the Crown and then specifies that that includes the reserve forces. The words "including reserve forces" do not appear in this Bill. That gives me some cause for concern in respect of the Territorial Army in particular because of what is happening to it at present both in the country as a whole and in Northern Ireland. I understand that there are considerable proposals to reduce the size of the Territorial Army and to sell off drill halls in the Province, just as there are for the United Kingdom. Indeed, alarm bells rang in my ears when I noticed that the reserve forces were not specifically being included in the excepted matters which are to be retained by Whitehall. I should be most grateful if the Minister could reassure me on that point. If the noble Lord cannot do so off the cuff—because he has received no notice of this question—perhaps he could respond in some other manner a little later. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I certainly support the noble Lord's amendment in the sense that it deals with the Armed Services. I believe that he is right and that there cannot be any argument about it. However, when it comes to the maintenance of public order in Northern Ireland, we must be careful not to pre-empt, for instance, the findings of the Patten Commission on police. It is possible to imagine a day when Northern Ireland will have a larger responsibility for the maintenance of public order than has been the case during the emergency period through which we have lived recently. I sympathise with what he said about the Armed Services. I want to be quite certain that the effect of his amendment will not prevent growing involvement by the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly as regards matters of public order that do not deal with the deployment of the armed services in future.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: May I at once reassure the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that it is certainly not my intention—I do not believe that it is the effect of any of

1835
my amendments—to rule out the transfer of responsibility in due course for the maintenance of public order and other policing functions to the Assembly when the time is right. Obviously, the Patten Commission and, for that matter, the review of criminal justice and so forth, will all have a bearing when the time is judged to be right. Part of the way in which I would judge that the time is right depends on whether the armed forces are still being employed to the extent that they have been recently, and are now. It will depend on whether they still need to be employed in the maintenance of public order. I hope that they will not be and that will enable the switch to take place in due course, if everything else is all right. So long as the armed forces are involved they should remain the responsibility of Whitehall and the Ministry of Defence and not of the local administration.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in his request to the Minister to clarify the position with regard to the reserve forces. To the best of my knowledge forces such as the TA have never been used in support of the civil power. It is very important that their position is clarified.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord's amendments bear on paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 and paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 and deal with the position of members of the armed forces of the Crown in carrying out functions for the purpose of the maintenance of public order.
Under the Bill the armed forces of the Crown are an excepted matter expect as regards the conferring on them of powers, authorities, privileges and immunities with regard to the maintenance of public order. In those circumstances, these matters are reserved, in the same way as in respect of police officers. We consider that it is right that this should be the case.
In Northern Ireland, members of the armed forces work alongside, and in support of, members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, exercising powers which are conferred on both of them. The effect of the noble Lord's amendments would be to remove that distinction, so that the armed forces of the Crown would be an excepted matter in all circumstances. The maintenance of public order is itself a reserve matter. For as long as it is considered necessary for the armed forces to operate in support of the RUC in Northern Ireland in maintaining public order, we believe that it is proper to ensure that these matters are dealt with consistently. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Perhaps I may comment specifically on the question that the noble Lord asked about reserve forces. That question was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. They are covered by paragraph 4 because the drafting of the schedule, unlike in the case of Scotland, defines general categories rather than precise details.
Government Amendments Nos. 262 and 263 also bear on paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the Bill. Amendment No. 262 has the effect of excepting the Ministry of Defence police from the more general reservation
1836
of public order powers, etc. conferred on police officers and members of the armed forces. The Committee will recognise the similarity that this bears to the noble Lord's amendment in respect of the armed forces. But I believe that the Committee will understand the distinction between the two bodies. It is our view that the Ministry of Defence police should not fall into the reserve field by virtue of this paragraph. The role of the Ministry of Defence police is to protect the property of the armed forces. They do not have a conventional policing function nor do they have the function of the armed forces. In practical terms the MoD police do not have a public order function in contrast to the role of the Army in Northern Ireland who operate alongside the RUC and exercise powers and functions which are conferred on both.
Amendment No. 263 makes the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland a reserve matter. That means that the Assembly would not be able to legislate in respect of the Parades Commission, including its membership and activities, without the consent of the Secretary of State. The Parades Commission is a statutory body set up under the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1988, which has important executive functions with a wide-ranging remit. Public order is one factor which the commission must balance against others, including relationships within the community, in reaching its decision on disputed parades. Since public order is a reserve matter, it is consistent for the Parades Commission also to be reserved.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I believe that Amendment No. 263 is very wise at this stage. The Parades Commission had a very rocky start in a difficult atmosphere. Were it a matter for the Assembly to deal with and were there to be a coalition, all those who objected to particular decisions of the Parades Commission might come together on a cross-community basis and sink it. In the long term this provision may not be necessary and we all sincerely hope that it will not. In the short term, I believe that it is wise to keep that matter reserved and we support the Government's amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I, too, agree with the amendment as regards the Parades Commission. It is right for it to be in the reserved category. As regards my own amendments, if I heard the Minister aright, he seemed to be saying that as long as the armed forces are serving alongside the police in the maintenance of public order, it will remain a reserved matter and not be transferred. In that case it seems to me that the powers given to the members of the armed forces and their other responsibilities in maintaining public order, should rightly remain with Whitehall as an excepted matter. It is right that the Ministry of Defence and Whitehall should retain responsibility and that that should be clear in the Bill itself. The Minister said that the Government will retain that power because it is not proposed to transfer it until the particular provisions are no longer required. In that case, why not accept it in the first place

1837
and make the position very clear? I do not suppose that anything I say now will convince the Minister otherwise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 44, line 2, after ("Act;") insert ("war pensions;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is necessary to ensure that war pensions fall into the excepted field. The pensions of former members of the armed forces clearly fall within the exception in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, which covers the armed forces of the Crown. However, war pensions are also paid to persons who may not have been members of the armed forces of the Crown, such as civilians, merchant seamen, coastguards and former Polish airmen.
We estimate that around 120 of the 4,000 or so war pensioners in Northern Ireland receive their awards other than in respect of service in the armed forces. We therefore consider it important to ensure that their war pensions are treated in the same way as those who served in the armed forces. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: And quite right too!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 44, leave out line 7 and insert—
("8. Nationality; immigration, including asylum and the status and capacity of persons in the United Kingdom who are not British citizens; free movement of persons within the European Economic Area; issue of travel documents.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will update the definition of nationality and immigration, which is an excepted matter in Schedule 2. The amendment brings the definition into line with the reservation in the Scotland Bill. It uses the term "British citizen", which was introduced in the British Nationality Act 1981. It also reflects the principle of free movement of persons within the European economic area. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 44, line 8, leave out ("Taxes") and insert ("The following matters—
(a) taxes or duties").
The noble Lord said: We are proposing these amendments to make it clear that the broad range of taxes and duties such as customs duties and agricultural levies are excepted matters. The amendments are purely technical and reflect our view that the term "taxes and duties" is preferable in the interests of clarity. Therefore I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments, which have the same effect. I refer to government Amendments Nos. 232, 236 and 237. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the Minister has indicated, I attempted to re-write this provision so as to make it clear. The Government have also done that.
1838
Therefore I should accept their drafting rather than impose mine. However, their drafting still retains the words,
"levied in Northern Ireland before the appointed day",
even after the Government's amendments have been included in the Bill. Does that prevent the United Kingdom from inventing a new duty? I was at the Treasury at the time that airport duty was introduced. I should not like to think that future Chancellors of the Exchequer were prevented from introducing such measures in respect of Northern Ireland because that would not, of course, have been levied in Northern Ireland before the appointed day.
Lord Dubs: That is certainly not the intention.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 233 not moved.]
Lord Rathcavan Lord Rathcavan moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 44, line 8, after ("whole,") insert ("except Corporation Tax levied within Northern Ireland,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 265 flag up what is becoming an increasingly important issue for inward investment in manufacturing in Northern Ireland; that is, the huge difference between corporation tax rates in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The figure is 10 per cent. in the Republic of Ireland and 31 per cent. in Northern Ireland. That matter greatly concerned those on the recent North American roadshow to attract inward investment headed by the Assembly First Minister, David Trimble, and his deputy, Seamus Mallon, and joined at several stages by the Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam.
At Second Reading of this Bill the Minister said that there was little support for fiscal powers in the discussions leading up to the agreement. He also said,
"We would not seek to introduce such a significant change in the package unless there were widespread support for it".—[Official Report, 5/10/98; col. 227.]
I believe that that widespread support, while not perhaps apparent in the political discussions before the agreement, has since become clear in the political establishment of Northern Ireland since the agreement. For example, the Alliance Party's manifesto states,
"Alliance supports power for the Assembly to reduce and increase tax".
The SDLP manifesto calls for,
"fiscal powers for the Assembly".
The Ulster Unionist Party has called for tax incentives to match those available in the Republic of Ireland. Even Sinn Fein advocates tax harmonisation, which is hardly an argument for the status quo. These parties account for a clear majority of seats in the new Assembly.
I am also acutely aware that there is widespread concern in the Northern Ireland business community about these corporate tax levels. It is well known that many Northern Ireland manufacturing companies have created or purchased subsidiaries in the Republic of Ireland where they can complete a manufacturing process and maximise their profits with the low rate of

1839
corporation tax. This is done quite legally but at the expense of corporation tax levied in Northern Ireland. The Treasury is losing out on tax receipts to the Republic of Ireland.
The current strategy review put in place by Mr. Adam Ingram, the Minister responsible for the economy in Northern Ireland, was established to find out the views of the business community on the development of the Northern Ireland economy. It will report soon. I believe that if the views of the CBI and the Chamber of Commerce are representative, the strategy review will come out strongly in favour of giving the Northern Ireland Assembly some fiscal responsibility for corporation tax and the ability to design a package for inward investment in manufacturing which is visibly competitive with that available across the land border.
I know of a large American pharmaceutical company already present in the Republic of Ireland. People in that company have told me there is no way in which they would set up a manufacturing plant in Northern Ireland with the current differential in corporation tax rates.
That was the message that participants in the Northern Ireland/North American roadshow were getting and they were concerned about the negative response and views expressed by First Minister, David Trimble, and his deputy, Seamus Mallon, in a recent article in the Irish News.
This issue will not go away. I fear that if it is not dealt with in this Bill it will become an even bigger issue in a year's time. I hope that the Minister has a more open mind today. The development of the Northern Ireland economy and new jobs are essential to the success of the peace process. These amendments highlight a matter which I am sure the new Assembly will wish to follow up. As the Minister confirmed earlier today, they will also give the Assembly the flexibility to play a part in such powers and responsibilities in due course. That cannot be done if corporation tax stays as an excepted matter. I beg to move.
Lord Desai: I have previously supported the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. Clearly it will be difficult for the Government to have within the UK fiscal regime two different rates of corporation tax. The problem is that there are two fiscal regimes on the island which comprises Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Some way will have to be found to soften the blow of the higher corporation tax upon Northern Ireland business. I presume that my noble friend will say we cannot grant such powers to the Assembly. I hope that he and his colleagues will explore other ways which are, as it were, legally permissible under the single market legislation—or more surreptitious ones, if that is necessary—which will make up the difference. Whether one calls this danger money, special exclusion grant or whatever, one has to compensate inward investment for the 20 per cent. difference in corporation tax as that inward investment is badly needed in Northern Ireland. I hope that my noble friend will give a sympathetic answer to the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I, too, wish to support the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. It is timely
1840
and I am quite certain that the recent mission to North America has found that as regards investment on the island of Ireland this differential, if weighed on the scales in a marginal decision, will weigh against the north versus the Republic of Ireland. Therefore the noble Lord is absolutely right to bring this matter to our attention. This discrepancy can do a great disservice to Northern Ireland industry as it tries to get into good shape in a competitive era. Certainly the United Kingdom as a whole has benefited from inward investment and, as we all know, it is very much needed in Northern Ireland and the right incentives are needed to attract it.
There is a further point that I wish to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has said. I agree with him that the method we are discussing is probably not the right way to achieve our aim, but is there not some other way within the ingenuity of the Government to compensate for this discrepancy? There is another point as regards strand two and strand three institutions. Is this not a matter for co-operation with the Irish Government? They must realise this situation is potentially a zero sum gain. In the end it could invite a competitive response from Northern Ireland, and instead of the island of Ireland as a whole benefiting from the considerable good will in the United States in particular but in other investment areas too, the danger is the situation will become competitive and everyone will lose out. This is exactly the kind of issue that ought to be dealt with in the new cross-border bodies and in strand three.
So I support the spirit of the amendment, while not supporting the substance. I hope that the Government's response will show some imaginative sympathy for the predicament in which Northern Ireland industry finds itself, at a competitive disadvantage to the Republic.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the case made by my noble friend Lord Rathcavan. As the Committee will know, he is an outstanding figure in the world of commerce and industry in Northern Ireland and further afield. He will share my view that for many years we have been far too dependent on government employment. Sooner or later some sectors will disappear, so that it is important that there should be a compensating factor.
I derive a good deal of encouragement from the sympathy shown by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, particularly as he is a former Treasury Minister. I am sure that he will do all he can to persuade his successors to be equally sympathetic.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I support the spirit of the amendment. Taxation decisions on corporation tax and the other main taxes discussed in the previous amendment should remain in the Treasury, in the central government of the United Kingdom. I support the proposition that the Treasury and everyone else need to address the discrepancy in corporation tax between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I am in no doubt that it has an increasingly serious effect on inward investment and that that in turn will be damaging to the

1841
economy of Northern Ireland. That economy is important for itself, but also for its contribution to bringing peace and good order to the Province. It will be much more difficult to achieve the kind of atmosphere we want in Northern Ireland if people are under great economic pressure. They continue to have high unemployment. There is extremely high unemployment in some areas of the Province, particularly in the west where it is among the highest in the European Union.
That discrepancy needs to be addressed. I am sure that the Assembly will wish to discuss it as well and make its points known. As I understand it, the Assembly can do so under the Bill. I hope that that is correct.
Lord Fitt: This is one of the most sensible amendments that we have had to the Bill since its introduction in the House. I am not in a close relationship with the business community or commerce but I know from discussions that I have had in Northern Ireland that there is full support for the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan.
There is another way to look at the problem. The British Government have put a great deal of energy into making the Belfast agreement, first, come on to the books and then ensuring, even within the past 24 or 48 hours, that it continues down the road to success. That is one way that the British Government could prove their intent, that they want to help Northern Ireland, that they want to see outside investment being attracted to it, that they want to see a reduction in the unemployment figures there.
If there is a reduction in the tax and it attracts industry, not only from America but also from other places, to Northern Ireland, it would lead to a consequent reduction in unemployment. It would mean that those who are at present unemployed and in receipt of welfare benefits would no longer claim welfare benefits from the state, so there would be a claw-back into the coffers of the British Government. It would not be all one-way traffic, it would not be regarded as a welfare gesture. If people are unemployed then the attraction of investment would mean that they would possibly pay tax back to the Exchequer if they had jobs.
In view of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, which is supported by the vast majority of elected representatives in Northern Ireland—and it will meet with total unanimity from Northern Ireland representatives in this House—the Government should give serious consideration to the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: Like all the speakers in the debate other than those who come from Northern Ireland, I recognise that there is a problem, it is serious and needs attention. But I must agree that it is not best dealt with by this proposal. Corporation tax, among all kinds of taxation, is one of the least suitable for the creation of differential rates within one jurisdiction. It is not just a matter of tax rates between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but potentially of tax rates between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The reduction would have to be very substantial in order for it to be effective, given the extremely low rate of tax in the Republic of
1842
Ireland. It would merely shift the discrepancy from one between the north and south of Ireland to one between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, with all the problems to which that would give rise.
If Northern Ireland were to achieve tax haven status for corporation tax within the United Kingdom, it would open up all the problems of transfer pricing and so on within this one jurisdiction. For that reason, while it is clear that something should be done so that Northern Ireland provides no less favourable an opportunity for inward investment than the Republic of Ireland, I am unable to support the amendment.
Lord Dubs: This has been an interesting discussion and in reply to my noble friend Lord Fitt I must say that the Government are totally committed to getting levels of unemployment down, creating more jobs and encouraging inward investment. That is why the Secretary of State and other Ministers have been on the 11-city tour in the United States. It is all intended to encourage inward investment and to tackle unemployment.
But corporation tax is not the only area where there are possibilities of encouraging inward investment. I appreciate that corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland is significantly lower than in the United Kingdom. But there are other ways in which countries develop a package of incentives to encourage inward investment. For example, we have the IDB in Northern Ireland which helps with inward investment. No doubt there are other ways in which the Secretary of State, on her 11 -city tour, encouraged potential North American investors to look at Northern Ireland as an attractive investment opportunity.
I ought to say that on the disincentive side, I believe that the events at Drumcree in July were probably a greater disincentive to inward investment than any other factor. If only people would show more sense in relation to Drumcree next year, maybe some North American companies that have been deterred in the past from coming to Northern Ireland will proceed to do so.
I understand that the purpose of Amendments Nos. 234 and 235 is primarily to enable the Assembly to discuss corporation tax in Northern Ireland. It is important to note that corporation tax provisions are determined centrally by the Treasury in the context of the United Kingdom's overall fiscal policy. To do otherwise might produce undesirable distortions within the UK single market. For that reason, it is important that corporation tax, like other taxes, remains an excepted matter. Despite the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, my understanding is that there was no consensus in the talks for the Assembly to have the power to vary taxes. There is certainly nothing in the Belfast agreement about tax-raising powers.
However, I should also make it clear that keeping corporation tax as an excepted matter does not rule out the possibility of a differential regime in the future within different parts of the United Kingdom. It simply means that it can only be introduced by a Westminster Bill. There are such Finance Bills each session. But lest the comments I made just now are likely to be

1843
misunderstood, I should make it clear that the Government have no plans to introduce a differential regime. All I am describing is the theoretical possibility of achieving the noble Lord's end through Westminster legislation rather than through changing the Bill.
Equally, I should also add—and I have mentioned this before—the agreement has provisions for regular reviews. If a proposal emerged from such a review, we would consider it carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned increased co-operation with the republic as regards attracting inward investment. That is certainly an attractive possibility, although I am bound to say that there is some tension, given that Northern Ireland would be competing with the republic. Nevertheless, co-operation is interesting. I hope that the noble Lord will treat that, as well as the other remarks I have made, as suggesting an element of imaginative sympathy, which is what he asked for. I reassure the Committee, as I sought to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that the Government want to do everything possible to encourage inward investment. However, we do not believe that the amendment of the noble Lord is the right way to proceed.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Before the noble Lord sits down, I thank him for his very generous response to my suggestion. We must get over to our friends in the Republic of Ireland that there is a price to be paid by them as well as by the United Kingdom to ensure that the future of Northern Ireland is as prosperous as can be. I feel no compunction about making those representations as strongly as possible in the new bodies that have been established. If they regard their mission as to take a larger and larger share of the Irish inward investment cake then it will be at the expense of Northern Ireland. Therefore, although I agree with the noble Lord that it takes a little leap of the imagination it is a case that we should make quite strongly to them.
Lord Dubs: Even though corporation tax in Northern Ireland is an excepted matter there is nothing to prevent the Assembly discussing that matter and putting proposals to the Government. To address the point just made by the noble Lord, equally there is nothing to prevent that issue being discussed in the North South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council. All of these are contexts in which the point made by the noble Lord can be given an airing in the interests of Northern Ireland and co-operation between Northern Ireland and Dublin, but responsibility for taxation must rest with Her Majesty's Government. More generally, the promotion of Northern Ireland trade under paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 is a transferred matter. Therefore, the Assembly can take a whole range of actions to promote such trade.
Lord Rathcavan: I hope that following this short debate the Minister is even more aware of the widespread concern in Northern Ireland about the disadvantages with which inward investment must contend. Further, I hope that the Government will give
1844
the Industrial Development Board of Northern Ireland every possible support so that it can produce a visibly competitive package in the future. In the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 236 and 237:
Page 44, line 9, leave out ("taxes") and insert—
("(c) taxes or duties").
Page 44, line 10, leave out ("that duty") insert ("those mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) or (b)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 237A:
Page 44, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert—
("10. The following matters—

(a) national insurance contributions;

(b) the control and management of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund and payments into and out of that Fund;

(c) reductions in and deductions from national insurance contributions;

(d) national insurance rebates;

(e) payments out of public money to money purchase pension schemes:

(f) contributions equivalent premiums;

(g) rights to return to the state pension scheme.

Sub-paragraph (a) includes the determination, payment, collection and return of national insurance contributions and matters incidental to those matters.
Sub-paragraph (b) does not include payments out of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund which relate to—

(i) the benefits mentioned in section 143(1) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, or benefits substantially of the same character as those benefits; or

(ii) administrative expenses incurred in connection with matters not falling within sub-paragraphs (a) to (g).

Sub-paragraphs (b) and (e) do not include payments out of or into the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund under—

(i) section 172(1)(b), (2)(a) or (7)(c) of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993; or

(ii) Article 202, 227, 234 or 252 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

In this paragraph "contributions equivalent premium" has the meaning given by section 51(2) of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 237A seeks to replace the current paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 with a more detailed and accurate exception for national insurance contributions. Amendments Nos. 267 and 268 to Schedule 3 make reservations for the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and for the subject matter of the vaccine damage payments scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I merely draw attention to the fact that under this amendment national insurance contributions and the management of them will be excepted matters but the property from within which

1845
civil servants manage them will not belong to the department but will be under the control of the Assembly unless the earlier amendments are discussed.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord replies to my noble friend, can he explain whether the mass of detail that is proposed to be inserted into the Bill exceeds the more general description in paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 which is pretty comprehensive?
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, states that paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 is pretty comprehensive. I am trying to understand the extent to which it is not sufficiently comprehensive. My present understanding is that it is not sufficiently comprehensive, hence the amendment now proposed. I am advised that the matter properly remains with the DSS. The Assembly can legislate to touch on the property of United Kingdom departments, but that does not change the ownership of them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 238:
Page 44, line 16, after ("Ireland,") insert ("holders of offices listed in column 1 of Schedule 3 to the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978,").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment to include as an excepted matter in paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 statutory officers appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. These include the Official Solicitor and the Legal Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice. This brings them into line with other judicial appointments. Government Amendment No. 239 is a technical improvement to remove the explicit exception in Schedule 2 of the appointment and office of the Director and deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. This is unnecessary because Section 34 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which provides for the appointment and office, remains in force. The reference in Schedule 2 duplicates that provision. It therefore follows that the Government do not believe that Amendment No. 259 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is necessary and I shall therefore invite him to withdraw it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 44, leave out lines 21 and 22.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 44, line 24, leave out ("; the registration of political parties") and insert—
("13A. The registration of political parties.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 240 is a drafting amendment to make the registration of political parties the subject of a separate paragraph in Schedule 2. This is in anticipation of future legislation on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I believe this to be a very wise move on the part of the Government, but it may be
1846
very unwise for me to draw a comparison with the Scotland Bill. However, the Minister does so when he feels it right to do so. In the Scotland Bill the registration and funding of political parties are excepted matters or, in the terms of that Bill, reserved matters. I would not have thought that funding came within registration given the wider interpretation that is used in this Bill in comparison with the more specific wording in the Scotland Bill. It is important that funding should be an excepted matter, not least because it is believed that some of the political parties in Northern Ireland, not the leading ones, have benefited from the rackets of paramilitary organisations at different times. In those circumstances, the funding of political parties can be an even more serious matter than in the rest of United Kingdom.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I support the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Like him, I inquire whether the amendment would be better worded if it made reference to registration and funding. Do the Government envisage that that is material because presumably it is accepted that the projected election commission to deal with these matters in future will, in looking after the registration of political parties and their funding, by definition also be excepted?
Lord Dubs: I am advised that the funding of political parties is covered. However, as I cannot put my finger on the exact point to justify what I say, perhaps noble Lords will accept that I shall look into the matter further and write to them accordingly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 44, line 27, at end insert—
(". The subject-matter of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 241 will make extra-territoriality an excepted matter by excepting the subject matter of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980. The Protection of Trading Interests Act is used to counter foreign assertions of jurisdiction and give Ministers power to instruct persons in the UK not to comply with instructions from foreign courts in certain circumstances and makes foreign judgements unenforceable in such cases in United Kingdom courts. That is in line with the reservation of that Act in the Scotland Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 44, line 30, at end insert ("; the subject-matter of—

(a) the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1920;

(b) the Interception of Communications Act 1985, except so far as relating to the prevention or detection of serious crime (within the meaning of that Act); and

(c) the Official Secrets Act 1989, except so far as relating to any information, document or other article protected against disclosure by section 4(2) (crime) and not by any other provision of sections 1 to 4.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment makes it clear that the subject matter of the Official Secrets Acts and the Interception of Communications Act 1985 is in the excepted field. This would arguably already be covered by the national security exception, but the amendment clarifies the position. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 44, line 30, at end insert—
(". Nuclear energy and nuclear installations, including nuclear safety, security and safeguards, and liability for nuclear occurrences, but not the subject-matter of—

(a) section 3(5) to (7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (emission limits); or

(b) the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.").

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 281. In the 1973 Act, nuclear installations were a reserved matter. That is the current entry in paragraph 34 of Schedule 3 to the Bill. However, we have looked at the matter again and consider the reservation to be inadequate. We accordingly propose to expand the category to include nuclear energy, nuclear safety, security and safeguards. That is in line with the reservations in the Scotland Bill. By including those matters in the category, we have gone some considerable way beyond the matters which were reserved in the 1973 Act. Indeed, we believe that the category concerns fundamental matters of national interest and as such should be excepted matters rather than reserved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 44, line 30, at end insert—
(". Regulation of sea fishing outside the Northern Ireland zone (except in relation to Northern Ireland fishing boats).
In this paragraph "Northern Ireland fishing boat" means a fishing vessel which is registered in the register maintained under section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and whose entry in the register specifies a port in Northern Ireland as the port to which the vessel is to be treated as belonging.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 44, leave out lines 31 to 38.
The noble Lord said: I tabled the amendment in order to find out the meaning of paragraph 17 of Schedule 2. It seemed to contain considerable complexities and did not appear to be clearly worded. However, the Minister subsequently tabled Amendment No. 245A. He has knocked out the whole clause and replaced it with clearer wording which I believe does the job more accurately. The clearer wording is to be preferred.
As the words used in my amendment are repeated in the noble Lord's amendment, I shall withdraw my amendment in order to support Amendment No. 245A.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): In the grouping with Amendment No 245 are Amendments Nos, 245A, 282A, 282B and
1848
282C. The noble Lord is right. His amendment jogged us into reconsideration and I am grateful to him for that.
There were deficiencies in paragraph 17 of Schedule 2. We seek to produce a degree of clarity although it is at the expense of brevity. In this group we propose amendments to Schedules 2, 3 and 4. They concern the extent to which the Bill and its subject matter are preserved from encroachment by the Assembly. In principle we wish to safeguard the main provisions of the Bill, reflecting, as they do, the agreement.
Not all provisions of the Bill are of the same nature. We had difficulty on the equality provisions. I mention the word "equality" with some diffidence because I believe that we have beaten it vigorously into the ground. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is not present. He has already told me that he will not move the amendments in the next group. We were legislating in an area presently a transferred matter in general. We want to give protection to the key features of the equality provisions. The Assembly will have to be intimately involved in this field. The anti-discrimination codes the equality commission will be operating must, under the agreement, be transferred matters. We have consulted the Northern Ireland parties. In the light of their reactions we propose that most of these matters should become reserved and therefore included in Schedule 3.
There are other provisions where there is no real policy reason for the matters concerned to be completely preserved against Assembly modification. We have therefore included in the reserved category, for instance, the provisions relating to the Assembly commission and Assembly property. Those categories will be open to modification by the Assembly but only with the consent of the Secretary of State and subject to parliamentary control, as in Clause 13.
There are elements in the Bill from previous legislation. Even this degree of protection seems unnecessary. There are the provisions relating to land purchase annuities in Clause 76. There is no reason of principle why the Assembly should not deal with those. There are technical reasons for retaining some flexibility. There must be scope for amendments to update a statutory reference where the Assembly, within its proper domain, makes changes that affect it—for instance, by reconstituting a body to which it refers.
The Bill as presented followed the 1973 Act in making excepted any matter for which provision was made by the Bill, so that any change beyond that ancillary to other provisions would be outside the competence of the Assembly. It followed the Scotland Bill in entrenching most of the Bill in Schedule 4 so the Assembly could not modify its provisions textually. We did not get all the provisions exactly right before presentation, as I said when I began to introduce the amendments. Under our amendments, most provisions of the Bill remain in the excepted category. We have moved a number of matters to reserved matters. I have mentioned some already, and there are others we have felt obliged to make reserved so as not to prevent the Assembly from legislating legitimately in associated fields. It is important, as a matter of principle, that the Assembly is able to develop

1849
matters and to feel that it has a legitimate interest in various sections which do not need to be specifically removed from it. That is true in particular of the new clauses and schedule on certificates relating to national security and other matters which it will be necessary to apply in the forthcoming equality legislation.
Entrenchment of the Bill's provisions would largely duplicate the safeguards I have outlined but would add unwanted rigidities since it permits of no textual modification. It would cut across our wish to make matters reserved or transferred. We propose therefore that the Bill generally should not be entrenched. We have not entirely abandoned that concept. It would still apply as in Scotland to the Human Rights Act 1998 (as it soon will be) and the European Communities Act 1972. We have left entrenched a small number of provisions of the Bill where exceptional reservation appears to entail unwanted restrictions on the devolved authorities but where we do not want to see the Bill modified.
The Scotland Bill has undergone a number of modifications. I cannot say that I am confident even today that we have the final wording absolutely right. I have to tell the Committee that there may be some further fine-tuning on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has courteously indicated his stance. I repeat my thanks to him again for bringing this firmly into the topic of our discussion.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 245A:
Page 44, leave out lines 31 to 38 and insert—
(" . Any matter with which a provision of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 solely or mainly deals.
Any matter with which a provision of this Act falling within the following sub-paragraphs solely or mainly deals—

(a) Parts I and II;

(b) Part III except sections (Junior Ministers), (Statutory functions), 18(2) and (3) and 21;

(c) Part IV except sections 32, 35(7), 36(8) and 41 and Schedule 6;

(d) in Part IVA, sections (North-South Ministerial Council and British Irish Council) and (British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference);

(d) Part V except section 44(1);

(e) Part VI except sections 58, 59(1) to (4) and 60 and Schedules 9 and 10;

(f) in Part VII, sections 68 to 70 and Schedule 11.

This paragraph does not apply to—

(i) any matter in respect of which it is stated by this Act that proy be made by Act of the Assembly;

(ii) any matter to which a description specified in this Schedule or Schedule 3 is stated not to apply; or

(iii) any matter falling within a description specified in Schedule 3.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 246 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 247:
Page 44, line 38, at end insert—
(" .—(1) Equal opportunities, including the subject-matter of—

(a) the Equal Pay (Northern Ireland) Act 1970,

(b) the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976,

(c) the Fair Employment Act 1976,

(d) the Fair Employment Act 1989,

(e) the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and

(f) the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997,

but excluding—

(i) the encouragement (other than by prohibition or regulation) of equal opportunities, and in particular of the observance of the equal opportunity requirements; and

(ii) the imposition of duties on any public authority in Northern Ireland to which section 60 of this Act, to make arrangements with a view to securing that the functions of the authority are carried out with due regard to the need to meet the equal opportunity requirements.

(2) In this paragraph, "equal opportunities" means the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, language or social origin, or of other personal attributes, including beliefs or opinions such as religious beliefs or political opinions; and "equal opportunity requirements" means the requirements of the law for the time being relating to equal opportunities.").
Lord Goodhart: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Lester, I point out that Amendments Nos. 247 and 265A relate to whether the substance of the equality legislation as opposed to its implementation should be an accepted matter. That was debated at length yesterday and will no doubt reappear on Report. In the circumstances, we believe that no useful purpose would be served by moving the amendment now and on behalf of my noble friend I do not do so.
[Amendment No. 247 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 44, line 38, at end insert—
(" . Regulation of activities in outer space.").
The noble Lord said: This is the first of several amendments which I have tabled in order to move certain issues from the reserved category to the excepted category. Earlier today, the Minister said that the fact that a matter appears in the reserved category does not necessarily mean that it will never be the responsibility of the Assembly and executive in Northern Ireland. However, I believe that that is how it will be read by some people.
I believe that there are some activities which it is right to say now will never, so far as we can see, be transferred to the devolved administration. Obviously, primary legislation could change that in the future. However, we could say that such matters will remain within the province of the Westminster Government and administration. One such matter is the regulation of activities in outer space.
I believe that a Northern Ireland space programme is unlikely, although I am second to none in my admiration of the activities of Shorts in the missile and space field. However, so far as I know, it has no ambitions to launch its own space programme based in Northern Ireland. I believe that in those circumstances the regulation of activities in outer space should be an excepted matter and not a reserved matter. That is what Amendment No. 248 proposes and I beg to move.
Lord Fitt: I am intrigued by the wording of the amendment and the notion that a reserved matter is the regulation of activities in outer space. Anyone who knows anything about Northern Ireland will know that during the past 30 years there have been a lot of spacemen running around the place. Many of the actions could have been carried out only by spacemen and a lot of the reporting of the actions in the media and the press could have come only from outer space.
Is the wording meant to be taken seriously? It is highly unlikely that there will ever be a space programme in Northern Ireland. Before tabling the amendment, did the noble Lords discuss the possibility of an outer space programme in the Northern Ireland Assembly? Did any of the political parties in Northern Ireland make any representations to the noble Lord to table the amendment? I conclude in the way that I began; there are a lot of spacemen running around in Northern Ireland.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: No, I received no representations on this matter. I observed the fact that in Schedule 3 the Government propose that the regulation of activities in outer space shall be a reserved matter potentially available for transfer to Northern Ireland. In believing that it was better that it should be an excepted matter, I did not consult representatives of the Assembly.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the amendments, particularly those dealing with postal services and wireless telegraphy and the provision of programme services within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990. It is important that we should not put ideas into the heads of entrepreneurs who might put under pressure their Assembly representatives. Such pressure would be unfair because perhaps for many years to come there will be doubt about whether the issue should be under the jurisdiction of the Assembly. It would be preferable to make clear now that such issues will not be overseen by the Assembly. I believe that most Members will accept that and welcome it.
Lord Dubs: I did not entirely understand the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I believe that we are discussing the regulation of activities in outer space.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am sorry, I understood that we were discussing the entire list.
Lord Dubs: I understand that we are talking to Amendments Nos. 248 and 282. Perhaps I may try to be
1852
helpful yet again to the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Amendments Nos. 248 and 282 address the matter of the regulation of activities in outer space and whether it should be in the reserved or accepted field. I am in full agreement with the noble Lord that it should be a matter for Westminster alone. The regulation of activities in outer space was not a matter with which the 1973 Act concerned itself and we do not therefore have difficulties with historical precedent. Nor do we have any existing body of Northern Ireland law on the matter.
I cannot foresee any circumstances in which we would envisage the Assembly having to involve itself in these matters. However, there is a technical problem with the point in Schedule 2 at which the noble Lord's Amendment No. 248 would insert the provision. If the noble Lord will kindly withdraw the amendment I shall undertake to bring forward a government amendment on Report to move that matter to the accepted field.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am gratified by that reply and hope that it sets a precedent for matters that I am about to raise. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 249:
Page 44, line 38, at end insert—
(" . Postal services, including the issue, transmission and payment of money and postal orders issued by the Post Office; designs for postage stamps.").
The noble Lord said: This is one of the matters for which I hope the previous amendment has proved a precedent. The provision of postal services, including the designs for postal stamps and other matters dealt with by the Post Office, are intended by the Government to be among the reserved matters. It is undesirable that postal services should be broken up by devolution and given separately to Northern Ireland. My amendments propose that such responsibilities are kept at Westminster.
There was discussion recently about the possible privatisation of the Post Office. I am not sure what stage the proposal has reached because we have heard only rumour and hints, making it difficult to follow the matter. However, if the Post Office, or some part of it, were to be privatised it would be extremely difficult if by then the Assembly were responsible for its Northern Ireland aspect. I believe that it would be better left in the excepted category so that the future organisation of the Post Office is the same throughout the United Kingdom and its universal nature is retained.
One of the issues referred to in the Government phraseology, which I have transferred into my amendment, is the design of postage stamps. We all know that there have been and are Northern Ireland postage stamps showing different designs from those used elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The same is true for other parts of the country. That has happened under a unified Post Office with no difficulty and I see no reason why it should not continue. However, to give the

1853
responsibility at some future date to the Assembly for the design of postage stamps seems to me a recipe for the most difficult debates one could possibly imagine.
To begin with, under international agreements, the words "United Kingdom" or any other indication of nationality do not appear on our stamps. Instead, by ancient right, the Queen's head alone appears. That would be the first point of contention in relation to the design of postage stamps for Northern Ireland if it were the responsibility of the Assembly. In my opinion, it is much better to leave those matters undisturbed and to place the postal services, including all those matters referred to, in the excepted category so that it is clear that they remain the responsibility of the central government of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I find what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, says persuasive but I have some concern about moving matters to the excepted category so that they can never—never is a dangerous word in politics—in any period of contemplation be something on which the Assembly could legislate.
For example, in the context of a reformed or semi-privatised Post Office, the issue of sub-post offices—extremely important to rural life in Northern Ireland—may arise. It may be something on which the Assembly—and the Secretary of State may agree—would wish to make its wishes known. Therefore, although the noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the contentious issue of the design of postage stamps as a matter which is unlikely to produce harmony if left to the Assembly, I am reluctant to see a whole category moved into permanent exceptions, as it were.
Lord Dubs: Amendments Nos. 249 and 255 would have the effect of moving postal services from the reserved to the excepted field. In introducing the amendments to these schedules, I set out for the Committee the thinking behind our general approach.
As I said, our primary concern is to give effect to the agreement set out against the background of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Our starting point in the schedules has been the divisions between excepted and reserved matters in the 1973 Act. Those are historical precedents which we cannot ignore.
As I also mentioned earlier, where a decision has been needed about whether a matter should be reserved or excepted, a number of factors have led us to prefer the reserved to the excepted field. There may be times, possibly in circumstances yet unforeseen, when it would be useful for the Assembly to legislate on some of those matters or at least at the fringes and subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. By keeping those matters in the reserved field, we retain that flexibility. Otherwise, if we put them in the excepted category, the possibility of flexibility is lost.
These amendments would move the Post Office and postal services into the excepted field. For the reasons that I have outlined, it is our considered view that it would be preferable to keep those matters in the reserved field, as in the 1973 Act. On the basis of that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
1854
The government amendment updates the definition, in paragraph 6 of Schedule 3, of postal services and the Post Office. It brings the definition into line with the Scotland Bill.
As regards the particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about postage stamps, it is not the Government's intention that the Assembly should legislate about postage stamps. But we consider it appropriate to reserve the whole matter of postal services for wider reasons; for example, carrier services.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is interesting that the Government are falling back on the Scotland Bill as a precedent at this stage, having rejected it earlier. It is interesting also that in talking about designs for postage stamps, the Minister says very firmly that the Assembly will not be allowed to design postage stamps but, nevertheless, he does not want that in the excepted category. He is leaving it in the reserved category so that the Assembly can have ambitions to do so because that is the point of the reserved category.
However, I do not seem able to make progress with the Minister. I have registered the issue as one of some importance and I have obtained at least the statement that some of those matters will never be transferred but will remain reserved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 44, line 38, at end insert—
(" . Regulation of the following—

(a) building societies;

(b) banking;

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

. Regulation of the following—

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

(b) the transfer of securities;

(c) insider dealing.

. The subject-matter of the Money Laundering Regulations 1993, but in relation to any type of business.
. Regulation of anti-competitive practices and agreements; abuse of dominant position; monopolies and mergers.
. Trade marks, service marks and design, copyright, patent and topography rights.
. Units of measurement and United Kingdom primary standards.").
The noble Lord said: It is rather extraordinary that this is another category which it is proposed to put in Schedule 3, the reserved part of the Bill, as opposed to Schedule 2, the excepted part. It concerns the regulation of building societies, banking and so on and investment businesses.
It is not desirable that there should be a different regime for the regulation of banks and building societies, friendly societies and the transfer of securities in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. The same regime should apply. That would

1855
be the best approach. I cannot see a time when we should wish to have different regulations. In those circumstances, it seems right to put them in the excepted category.
Also within this amendment I have referred to trade marks, service marks and designs, copyright, patent and topography rights. Again, according to the Bill, they are headed for the reserved category. That opens up the possibility that in order to register a trade mark, one would have to register it not only in Great Britain but also separately in Northern Ireland. That is not desirable. I believe that those matters should remain in the excepted category.
Insider dealing is one of the matters which is to be reserved for possible future transfer. Money laundering regulations are also covered by the amendment. Therefore, we are beginning to touch once again on the question of rackets. I have made it clear on numerous occasions over many years that I regard the rackets as extremely serious within the whole position of Northern Ireland. There is a certain political momentum to terrorism. It is obviously the aim of the agreement and everything that goes with it to take out that political momentum and to deal with the political momentum for the violence that has occurred.
However, there is also a certain economic momentum to the violence. There are people within the circle of the paramilitary whose economic benefit it is to keep the violence going. That is a very dangerous feature of the matter which must be taken extremely seriously. I do not suppose that the Assembly and the executive will not take the matter seriously but I believe that the authority of the United Kingdom Government, particularly on issues like money laundering and so on, needs to be brought to bear and to remain the authority in charge of those matters.
Lastly, at the bottom of the amendment, I have attempted to move from Schedule 3 to Schedule 2 units of measurement and United Kingdom primary standards. I am not sure what we are measuring here. Whether we are dealing with pints and litres of a particular liquid or yards, feet and inches, it seems to me highly desirable that units of measurement should remain consistent throughout the United Kingdom and should remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. The idea of the Assembly arguing about what units of measurement should be introduced seems to be a mistake. I should include that in the excepted category. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said in detail in introducing the amendment. The remarks which I made somewhat prematurely apply equally on this amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: When the matter of measurement is raised I, too,—possibly like the Chief Whip opposite—think in terms of rods, poles and perches. The idea of a rod, a pole or a perch being of different length in terms of feet and inches in Northern Ireland compared with, say, an allotment in Southsea,
1856
fills me with horror. How would one know whether or not one's rod was fair in whichever part of the counpry one lived?
That is not a serious point. But my noble friend is right to say that the subject of rackets is serious. The Minister made the point over and over again that nothing will happen in the Assembly—I am paraphrasing and he will leap to his feet, as he has done before, if I paraphrase wrongly—unless there is a substantial measure of cross-party agreement. Given that, if a future government make the mistake of transferring some functions to the Assembly, it is quite likely that nothing will happen. In some areas, especially on the subject of rackets, that is extremely undesirable and that is why rackets in particular should remain under the United Kingdom Government.
Lord Fitt: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned the question of measurements. I am not sure whether or not he is aware that there is indeed a difference. Measures in a bar in Ireland are different from the measures we get here. Everyone knows that, though it depends on how many one has been drinking.
Also, I am almost certain that there is something called an "Irish mile", where there is a difference in the number of yards involved. So there are differences, especially in relation to ale, gin, whisky or whatever. It has been accepted in Ireland for many years. In fact, when some of my guests come over here and I buy them a drink—no later than yesterday—they look at it and say, "That is very small compared to home". So the measures are larger in Belfast. I wonder where the permission came from to differentiate in measurements and when it came about. But there is certainly a difference.
Lord Howie of Troon: My noble friend would be well advised to take his guests to Glasgow; they would be quite happy t`ere.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: All of us defer to the noble Lord's experience on the matters about which he has just spoken.
I find myself being particularly persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, without being persuaded in general. In general, if our ambition is to have devolved government in Northern Ireland, as it is, we have to make a strong case for moving functions from a category of reserve where they might potentially, at some point in the future if it is sensible, be moved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and putting them in the "excepted" category, which means that we cannot contemplate any future in which they would be something to be dealt with by the Assembly.
In relation to most of these matters, I find it difficult to envisage a future in which they would be dealt with by the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I agree with the noble Lord on that point. However, I do not want to cut off that possibility. I agree strongly in regard to money laundering to the extent that it funds terrorism. I would regard it as a great achievement if we obtained the political will on a cross-community basis in Northern Ireland to cut off those funds as well as talking about it

1857
in the Westminster Parliament. Therefore, though I see the case he is making, the wholesale transfer does not appeal to me.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on including trade marks, service marks, copyright, patents, and so forth. There are multi-national companies with worldwide patents which have overlooked, "including the Republic of Ireland". In many important cases the patents have not applied to Northern Ireland and much confusion, difficulty and loss of money has resulted therefrom. It is therefore important that Northern Ireland should be included as part of the United Kingdom.
Lord Dubs: Let me deal first with the comment made by my noble friend Lord Fitt. I have extremely limited experience of the matter, but so far as I have experience, I can confirm that Northern Ireland alcohol measures are much larger than they are in England and certainly larger than they are in the bars in the Palace of Westminster.
I am in the difficulty that throughout the afternoon we have been dealing with different amendments and I am tempted to make the same speech on each occasion. I shall try to make the same speech sound slightly different now for the sake of not being tedious.
Amendment No. 250 would move a number of further matters which are currently reserved into the list of excepted matters in Schedule 2. The amendments address a range of issues including the regulation of financial services and markets, of anti-competitive practices, trade marks and units of measurement. Those matters were all reserved in the 1973 Act and, though legislation in those areas in the main has been taken forward on a UK-wide basis, I do not consider that it would be appropriate to rule out the possibility of at some stage allowing the Assembly to legislate in some aspects of those matters, but with the consent of the Secretary of State and subject to the system of parliamentary control.
As regards financial services and markets, I ask the Committee to note that we anticipate the need to come back to the definitions of those provisions at Report stage. All we are asking is for an element of flexibility. In relation to the specific point on racketeering, that is a matter of criminal law and is already a reserved matter as has been the subject of earlier debate. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand that racketeering is a matter for the criminal law. We may be told later that we should not separate out some matters from within the criminal law and put them into different categories. At the same time, the fighting of the rackets should be a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom and we should obtain as much co-operation as we can from the republic. We have had a good deal of co-operation in that matter in the past.
I am not sure whether I included too much in this single amendment. I seemed to receive support on the matter of trade marks and so forth. Perhaps if I had left that as a
1858
separate amendment I would have received more. Units of measurement only draw attention to the differences that seem apparent when looked at in some respects.
On the other hand, in some ways I have been modest in only suggesting that the regulation of banks and building societies and other matters should be moved into the excepted category. I notice that the Scotland Bill is called in aid by the Minister from time to time and I am overcoming my inhibitions about referring to it myself. That excepts not only these matters, but also specifically fiscal, economic and monetary policy.
I hope we do not need to except fiscal, economic and monetary policy here. We are in the position that anything that is not specifically excepted or reserved is automatically transferred. Some people may read the Bill as automatically transferring fiscal, economic and monetary policy and all that goes with it to the Assembly from day one. I am sure that is not what the Government intend. However, having aired the subject, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 44, line 38, at end insert—
(" . Wireless telegraphy and the provision of programme services (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990).").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 251 seeks to move broadcasting from Schedule 3 to Schedule 2, broadly speaking. Therefore, I want to rely primarily on the arguments put forward by the Secretary of State for Scotland when the proposition was put to him and received some support; that is, that broadcasting should be the responsibility of the Scotland parliament.
The Secretary of State for Scotland used the argument that the pace of technological development in broadcasting and the spread of services beyond national borders meant that it made sense to organise the regulatory and legislative framework at United Kingdom level. The implication was that it would become more so as technological advance takes us further in that field.
He also argued that there was little to devolve since the Government's involvement in broadcasting on a day-to-day basis was minimal. Acceptance of the amendment would not necessarily stop or advance the breaking up of the BBC into different pieces; as I understand it, a Northern Ireland broadcasting corporation, a Great Britain broadcasting corporation and, for that matter, a Scottish one as well, would ensure, in the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the regulatory and legislative framework remained at a UK level and was consistent throughout the UK. As we can all hear each other's broadcasts to a certain extent, that seems to be wise. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: For the reasons I have explained on several occasions this afternoon, there are a number of matters which are in the reserved field where we would wish to maintain the flexibility that the reserved field provides. These amendments would move

1859
telecommunication matters into the excepted category. For the reasons I have just outlined, our preference is to keep them in the reserved field. I would therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. The government amendment updates the definition, including matters such as the Internet.
Perhaps I may add one further point about the reserved field. It has been made clear to your Lordships that the Assembly, with the consent of the Secretary of State, would be able to legislate in the reserved field. There might be occasions when the subject matter of proposed legislation would be partly in the reserved field and partly in the transferred field. One of the justifications for flexibility is that there would then be no constraint on the Secretary of State giving her consent and, indeed, the Assembly would then have no constraint in dealing with the matter. The point about flexibility has quite a wide bearing on a number of these amendments, including this one.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand the Minister to mean that there might be occasions where legislation could be partly United Kingdom legislation and partly Assembly legislation to cover a certain point. If that is so, primary legislation would be required in the United Kingdom and permission could be given at that time for the Assembly to deal with its element of the matter.
However, the noble Lord has made out a case for flexibility and, at this stage of our discussions, I shall not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 252:
Page 44, line 38, at end insert—
(" . Domicile.").
The noble Lord said: This is the last of this series of amendments, attempting fruitlessly to move, at least for today, matters from Schedule 3 to Schedule 2. This amendment concerns the matter of domicile.
I am not a lawyer, as I have made clear frequently in the past, but domicile comes into taxation, with which I have had something to do—both in a professional capacity as an accountant in days gone by, and when I had political responsibility for taxation. Domicile is a very important concept within tax law. Alongside residence and ordinary residence it can very much affect a person's tax liability and where it falls, whether within our jurisdiction or within somebody else's jurisdiction. It seems that it is a matter which, whatever other importance it may have, has a crucial importance in tax law and, as such, should not be in the reserved category but alongside the rest of the tax law within the excepted category.
I do not know whether domicile has any other great legal significance of which I am not aware, but, in so far as this is a tax matter, it should be excepted, just as the other matters to do with taxation are excepted.
Lord Goodhart: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I speak as a lawyer who has
1860
some familiarity with tax law. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is familiar with it from the point of view of an accountant. As matters now stand, the main function of domicile in the law of the United Kingdom is to determine the extent of liability to certain kinds of tax, in particular income tax. It therefore seems to be wholly inconsistent to treat domicile as a reserved matter while taxation, under paragraph 9 of Schedule 2, is an excepted matter.
The other field in which domicile is significant—in fact there is an entirely different test for a domicile in this matter—is under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act, which applies in the United Kingdom the Brussels and Lugano Conventions on the jurisdiction of the courts of the various member states of the European Union and the European Economic Area. That test of domicile seems to be—again, a matter within paragraph 3 of Schedule 2—a matter of international relations, and in particular international treaties. There again, the treatment of domicile as a reserved matter, where international treaties is an excepted matter, seems wholly inconsistent. Between now and Report stage, will the Government look again at the treatment of domicile?
Lord Dubs: The argument I shall put forward will be the same as I have put forward on other occasions in relation to other amendments. We do not intend that the Assembly should have the power to change the law of domicile as it applies to tax matters. That would generally bring any such legislation into the excepted field. However, in view of the points that have been made this afternoon, will the noble Lord consider withdrawing his amendment to give me time to reflect upon it? If my reflection does not alter my opinion, I will give him good notice and he can bring the amendment forward again. I would like to consider it because I am not sure that I have dealt with all the key points that have been raised.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That seems to be a very fair offer. The Minister also said that, so far as the use of domicile for tax purposes is concerned, he believes that it is already an excepted matter as a result of the other taxation provisions.
Lord Dubs: We would prefer to keep domicile in the reserve category. If I said otherwise it was a slip of the tongue. As I said, I would like to reflect on the points that have been made this afternoon. It may be that I cannot change my mind, but at least I would like time to think about them.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I entirely understand that the Minister needs time to reflect and take advice. I thought I understood the Minister to say that, in so far as domicile affects taxation matters, the fact that taxation matters are excepted under other provisions means that it is, in any case, excepted in that capacity. Perhaps I misunderstood the Minister. I do not wish to press the matter in view of the fact that he will consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Reserved matters]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 44, line 40, at end insert—
(". The conferral of functions in relation to Northern Ireland on any Minister of the Crown.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment to ensure that functions in the transferred field in relation to Northern Ireland cannot be conferred on a Minister of the Crown without his consent. This is necessary because the functions of a Minister of the Crown in relation to Northern Ireland are excepted from the exception of the Crown in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2, but it would not be appropriate for the Assembly to be able to confer new functions on a Minister of the Crown without prior consultation and consent. There might, for example, be propriety or financial considerations which would need to be taken into account before such agreement could be given. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 253A:
Page 44, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert—
(" . Property belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or belonging to a department of the Government of the United Kingdom or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of such a department (other than property used for the purposes of the armed forces of the Crown or the Ministry of Defence Police).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 254 and 255 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 256:
Page 45, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
(". The Post Office, posts (including postage stamps, postal orders and postal packets) and the regulation of postal services.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 257:
Page 45, line 11, leave out ("including the creation of offences and penalties") and insert—
("() the creation of offences and penalties;").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 257, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 260. These amendments bear on paragraph 8 of Schedule 3. The first is a technical amendment to avoid confusion and to ensure that the criminal law is contrasted with the civil law. The second amendment has the effect of ensuring that the reservation of the criminal law and creation of offences and penalties does not include matters within paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 which excepts national security and provisions to do with terrorism, subversion and so on. Thus the amendment ensures that these matters are excepted rather than reserved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 258:
Page 45, line 11, at end insert ("but not the law relating to abortion;").
The noble Lord said: There are two aspects of this amendment. One is the moral issue, which was the subject of debate on many occasions during my 27 years in the other place. It was noticeable that on all those occasions the elected representatives of Northern Ireland made common cause right across the traditional divide. It would be true to say that that same unity will be found in the recently elected Northern Ireland Assembly. Thus there remains broad opposition to abortion and I have detected no wavering on the part of any of the main parties in Northern Ireland.
Since Stormont was abolished in 1972, successive governments, Labour and Conservative, have proclaimed their willingness to take heed of, and to act upon, proposals and suggestions if they had the support of both sides of the community. But, surprisingly, when the Northern Ireland parties spoke with one voice, successive sovereign governments pretended not to hear. One typical example is the education Bill which gave us all so much trouble and which ended up with all of us supporting the Roman Catholics bishops in Northern Ireland in seeking a judicial review. In this Bill, your Lordships have another example.
The modest amendment before your Lordships moves us on from the rights and wrongs of abortion, as was the case in our deliberations on the Scotland Bill on 27th July this year. We have a problem in convincing the people of Scotland and the people of Northern Ireland that there is some justification for applying different standards and rules to two forms of killing—abortion and euthanasia. The latter is to be devolved to local assemblies in Scotland and in Northern Ireland while the other is not.
Few people will find any comfort in the assertion that abortion is to be a reserved matter, with the implied possibility that it may be devolved to the Assembly at a later date. For most people, whether they be in Scotland or in Northern Ireland, the implication is that after a span of five or perhaps 10 years their elected representatives will be not quite mature enough to be entrusted with power to deal with subjects like abortion. That is an unfair reflection upon those representatives.
I remember that in the debate on this very subject during proceedings on the Scotland Bill the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that abortion had been placed in the list of reserved matters—and then added,
"which … can be reviewed by agreement between the two parliaments".—[Official Report, 27.7.98; col. 1305.]
Those are the sovereign Parliament at Westminster and the Scottish parliament. If the possibility of reaching agreement is clearly within the Scotland Bill, is it also within the present Northern Ireland Bill? Surely we ought now to make a decision in principle to devolve the power to the Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as possible. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Fitt: In associating myself with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I am all too conscious from many years experience at both ends of this building that when the subject of abortion is raised great passions are generated and friendships are lost.

1863
Of a number of controversial subjects that have been debated in both Houses, this is by far the most personal to many people.
As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said, it cuts across religious boundaries. Abortion is not only opposed by Roman Catholics but by Protestants as well. As we have seen in Northern Ireland, many people are opposed to abortion. I am aware that if this debate is to continue at Report stage it will become more heated as the days go by. In America last weekend a doctor who supported abortion was cruelly murdered by someone who opposed abortion. As I say, this issue generates great passion among those who support it or reject it.
When I was in Northern Ireland last week I talked to many people. I did not say, "Are you in support of abortion or are you opposed to it?" I said, "Do you think that the elected representatives of the Northern Ireland people, the people for whom you voted in the elections which followed the referendum, should make the decision one way or the other on abortion?" I put that question to a cross-section of the community in Northern Ireland, people of all religions. They all said that it was a matter that should be decided by the people whom they elected in the recent elections.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Dubs that this Government want to give as many powers as they can to the newly elected Northern Ireland Assembly. They want to give it responsibility for bringing Northern Ireland into a new era. They want to give it responsibility for taking decisions which will affect the people of Northern Ireland—decisions involving matters of life and death. Over the past number of years we have had matters of life and death decided by murderers and terrorists.
All I would say to my noble friend the Minister is that I believe that the people of Northern Ireland who have voted for their representatives should not deny the right of those representatives to take a decision on this very crucial and emotional subject. I was speaking to people last week and I asked them: "Do you think it is right that people within the august atmosphere of the House of Lords should take a decision as to whether or not there is a right to legislate on abortion?". Your Lordships' House is very remote from the everyday concerns of people in Northern Ireland. Therefore I would ask the Minister, in view of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that whether a private opinion may be held for or against abortion, this is a matter which should be legislated for in the newly-elected Northern Ireland Assembly.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: At Second Reading we had a debate on the general matters contained in the Bill and I took the opportunity of raising the issue of whether abortion would be a reserved or an exempted power. I will not weary your Lordships with all the arguments I put forward then. Suffice it to say that I support very strongly the amendment to which the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Molyneaux, have so eloquently spoken from their respective Benches today.
1864
This is an issue which unites politicians in Northern Ireland and which unites the community. Therefore, we should tread extremely sensitively in being prepared to try to impose our view, whether it is for or against abortion, on the community in Northern Ireland. This surely is exactly the type of matter that ought to be properly debated there. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, and I, for instance, would disagree on the fundamental question of abortion, but when we came to consider the Scotland Bill we both put precisely the same view: that this is a matter to be decided in Scotland.
Indeed we are in danger of opening up a number of contradictions because in the Scotland Bill we say that euthanasia may be decided in Scotland, but not abortion. That, we have said, will always be a power retained at Westminster. Yet we have taken one criminal justice question and placed it in the hands of the Scottish assembly and taken another criminal justice question and said that it must be retained here at Westminster.
The argument is being advanced in the case of Northern Ireland that the abortion issue will for now be reserved to Westminster but may eventually be resolved in Northern Ireland. I think it would be much clearer if all these questions such as euthanasia and abortion—the big moral and social issues—which do predominate in the minds of many people in parts of these islands, far more so than many of the economic and other constitutional questions which so preoccupy us in our Chamber here, should be decided on the ground in both places.
That would be a much more straightforward way of looking at these things and it would accept the principle of devolution because devolution should carry with it the responsibility that goes with a grown-up assembly which can make up its own mind on these matters. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, since our debate not only answered a Parliamentary Question which I tabled on 15th October, but in correspondence on 19th October and in a letter dated 27th October to me has gone a long way to address some of the concerns which I raised at Second Reading. I should like to thank him for the way in which he has gone about trying to conduct this debate. It is in nobody's interest that we should need to have a Division on this question and it is in everybody's interest that we should try to find some rational and reasonable way forward in resolving what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has quite rightly described as a sensitive issue which raises passions. Those passions should be raised in the new Northern Ireland Assembly and, in my opinion, resolved there.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, when dealing with the question of whether parliamentary time would be made available for a Private Member's Bill from this place until such time as this matter is exempted to the Northern Ireland Assembly, said in his letter to me today:
"I should explain that while additional time was allowed for the passage of controversial legislation on social issues in the 1960s, more recent Governments have made it plain that such Bills will have to proceed only during the normal time available".
I welcome that statement and I think the whole Committee should dwell on it, because it effectively means that if the Government say they will remain

1865
neutral on questions of this sort and will not provide Private Members' time between now and whenever Northern Ireland has this matter exempted to it, then the status quo would be maintained in Northern Ireland until that moment is reached.
In other words, we would not then seek to impose a change in the law—a law which was after all crafted with the deliberate intention of recognising that different circumstances prevailed in Northern Ireland, which is why the 1967 Act deliberately exempted Northern Ireland in the first place. It would mean that the status quo could be preserved in the interim. I welcome the statement that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has made and I hope that he might go slightly further in that respect. I recognise why the noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Fitt, tabled this amendment today and I hope that in the period between now and Report stage the Government will try to become firmer in giving a timetable of when they would anticipate that this matter will be exempted to the Northern Ireland Assembly and that they will also recognise that they need to unravel the inconsistencies that they are building into these two respective pieces of legislation.
In the meantime, I welcome the position of the Opposition Front Bench and that of the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, who made their position clear on the Scotland Bill. The Official Opposition, I think, have tabled a further amendment for the Report stage of the Scotland Bill to the effect that these are properly matters which should be devolved to those respective assemblies.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I rise with hesitation, because this is a very emotive issue and the last thing I wish to do is to contribute to an emotive debate. However, this has not been an emotive debate; it has been conducted with conspicuous moderation by the three noble Lords who have spoken so far.
I should like to say one or two things, if I may. First, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, has referred to his speech at Second Reading, when he put to me a number of questions about whether or not there was discrimination in this area. He said, among other things, that 1,300 United Kingdom women die every year because of breast cancer directly caused by abortion. I have been written to by Mr. David Paintin, Emeritus Reader in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Imperial College School of Medicine, who, in a very learned paper on behalf of the Birth Control Trust has suggested that the noble Lord was misinformed. He has given me a great wodge of articles and studies, suggesting that the statement made by the noble Lord has the potential to cause women a great deal of unnecessary anxiety and also that the medical research does not support that proposition. I mention this because it is important that the Committee should always be well informed on these matters. I am not competent at all to be able to choose between the medical studies but, having said that, I shall say something now which will please the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and those—
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I did not realise he was going to raise
1866
that particular point. It was not a throwaway remark on my part in the last debate. Indeed the noble Lord will recall that I cited 30 pieces of research, of which 24 say that there is a link and although Mr. Paintin may take a contrary view, this is empirical research and not just personal opinion.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I will give the noble Lord the other studies and then leave him to go through them. I am sure that is the best way of proceeding. I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that this is a subject which is sufficiently protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act to safeguard women in Northern Ireland against some extreme and fundamentalist legislation hypothetically enacted there, because the European Convention fairly balances the right to life with the right to respect for private life. This is caselaw which the Northern Ireland courts would have to follow and is very balanced. The Northern Ireland Assembly, were it foolish enough to pass extreme legislation, would find that legislation struck down by the courts, having regard to Strasbourg caselaw.
I am also impressed by the argument that it is illogical to devolve that aspect of the criminal law dealing with euthanasia in Scotland, but not abortion in Scotland. That seems extremely odd.
My other point—I am sorry to have to say this—is that I find the Government's values strange in that they will fully devolve equality law and place that utterly at the mercy of the Assembly but will not devolve abortion law. I find that an odd sense of priorities, so I have great sympathy for the speeches that have been made. As for the medical matters, I leave those for outside the Committee and another occasion.
6 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I do not want to take any view today on the question of what the law on abortion in Northern Ireland or, for that matter, anywhere else should say. I am on record on that elsewhere over the years if anyone wants to know my position. The question now before us is not what the law on abortion should state, but who should settle the law on abortion with regard to Northern Ireland and where the responsibility should lie. The Bill provides that the responsibility remains in the reserved category. When we began discussing the Bill, it seemed that the matters listed in Schedule 3 and the reserved categories would be transferred to the Assembly in due course. Certainly, some of them will be so transferred although during our debates on other matters we have discovered that the fact that a matter is within the reserved category does not necessarily mean that responsibility for it will ever be transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. In that sense, the debate on whether abortion should be in this category takes on a more permanent character than it originally seemed to have.
It has also been pointed out to us on other amendments dealing with these categories that a matter that is within the reserved category can be legislated on by the Assembly with the approval of the Secretary of State and the Westminster Parliament. That is a partial

1867
loaf, as far as the Assembly is concerned. However, we must consider whether the approval of the Secretary of State and the Westminster Parliament is wise in this case. I do not think that it is. I think that the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives should decide what the law on abortion should state in Northern Ireland. I cannot see any reason to hold back on giving them that power on day one when we are giving them huge powers on the many matters we have discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, spoke of the Government unravelling the inconsistencies between the Scotland Bill and this Bill and, for that matter, the Government of Wales Act. There is no hope of that. As we have discovered in discussing other parts of this Bill, there are many inconsistencies between those three pieces of devolution legislation—and the likelihood of unravelling those inconsistencies has reduced as we have proceeded. That is because the approach taken in the drafting of the Bills and on the various issues has differed. That is well demonstrated by the fact that the matter of criminal justice is being divided in Scotland so that responsibility for abortion is kept at Westminster. However, we have also been told that it is impossible to divide criminal justice so as to remove responsibility for abortion to Northern Ireland. That is only one of the inconsistencies.
I see no reason why criminal justice cannot be divided in this way either in Scotland, where that is what the Government propose to do, or in Northern Ireland, which is what this amendment seeks to achieve. I cannot see a reason of principle or a reason relating to the administration of justice to explain why such a division should not be made. After all, once the law has been passed by whoever is responsible, the police will have to enforce it. The police in Northern Ireland will have to implement laws made by both the Assembly and the Westminster Parliament. There is no doubt about that.
As far as I am concerned, the matter of abortion can be transferred now. I see no reason for delaying it and for putting it in the reserved category. Therefore, I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment. I should add that because of the complexities surrounding Private Member's Bills, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, it may be right for the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, not to press his amendment to a Division today but to carry over the discussion to Report stage. I would not object to that. However, in principle, it seems to me right that the question of abortion should be settled in Northern Ireland by the Assembly and not here by the Westminster Parliament.
Lord Dubs: I think we are all agreed that we are not discussing what abortion policy should be in Northern Ireland; we are simply discussing whether retaining or changing such a policy is the responsibility of Westminster or ought to be the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I think that that is clear.
Amendment No. 258 bears on paragraph 8(a) of Schedule 3 to the Bill. It would have the consequence that the whole of the law on abortion in Northern Ireland would become a transferred matter. Under the Bill as it stands, any reform of the law on abortion, such as the
1868
1967 Act which has never applied in Northern Ireland, would be a reserved matter since it concerns the criminal law. The agreement is clear that no criminal justice matters should transfer at present. Paragraph 3 of Strand 1 of the agreement makes clear that the new authorities will exercise full legislative and executive authority in respect of those matters currently within the responsibility of the six Northern Ireland government departments, with the possibility of taking on responsibility for other matters detailed elsewhere in the agreement in due course. It follows that I cannot support the amendment.
At a future time when we consider the transfer of criminal justice responsibility in the light of the review now under way there will need to be a decision as to which parts of the criminal justice field should transfer. Any change in the status of any reserved matters could, under the Bill, be brought about if, but only if, there were agreement in the Assembly based on cross-community support and after the approval of an appropriate resolution in each House here at Westminster.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has written to me. Indeed, the noble Lord referred to the recent correspondence. He sought an assurance that time would not be made available for a Private Member's Bill to change the law on abortion in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord quoted parts of that letter, but I hope that he will permit me to develop the theme more fully. It has been very rare for such a time to be made available. Although we can all recall cases in the 1960s, they have been rarities since. So I do not think that there is any expectation that such time will be made available.
I hope that the noble Lord will understand why, as a matter of general principle, we would not wish to give absolutely open-ended guarantees of that sort about any matter. We cannot commit ourselves in unforeseeable future circumstances when the position might be completely transformed. I want to make it clear, however, that, as we have said before, we are aware of the strength of feeling on this issue in Northern Ireland. We are aware in particular that there is little support among the political parties there for a reform of the law on 1967 lines, but any change at all in the law relating to abortion would need the most careful consultation in Northern Ireland. We have no wish to foist anything on the people there that is against their will. I think that that is a clear statement.
I believe that I have indicated how, in the fullness of time, such matters as abortion can become transferred matters. However, my noble friend Lord Fitt suggested to me that all the Northern Ireland parties wanted the Assembly to take immediate responsibility for abortion. All that I can say to him is that had the Northern Ireland parties wanted that, surely they would have argued the case in the Good Friday agreement, but it is not there. Therefore, I do not think it appropriate in the main Bill giving effect to the Good Friday agreement to depart from what the agreement says. It says that in the future at some time this is a possibility. It does not say here and now.

1869
If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested that the matter should be for here and now. I have to point out that we have stuck consistently by the Good Friday agreement and I intend to continue to do so. I believe that it is right and proper for criminal justice matters to be reserved matters at this stage. Then, if we consider such matters in the future, there will be scope for making changes either for the whole criminal justice system or for parts of it. I repeat: I do not believe that that is a matter for now. I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and for the constructive way in which they have approached the subject. Perhaps I may assure Members of the Committee that there is no danger whatever—and certainly no intention on the part of any elected representatives in Northern Ireland—to introduce any new draconian legislation. There would simply be a determination to preserve the situation as it presently exists; that is to say, the position as it existed in Great Britain prior to the 1967 Act.
In regard to what the Minister said about those who participated in the drafting of the agreement, I am quite confident that if this very question had been put to them as representatives of both ends of Ireland—indeed, practically every party in Northern Ireland was represented—there would have been a resounding victory along the lines of the amendment that I have tabled this evening.
I have great sympathy with the views expressed from the Front Bench opposite by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that we should withdraw the amendment and then reflect upon what has been said and what the position ought to be before we reach Report stage. Because some noble Lords may have entered the Chamber after this debate commenced, I remind the Committee that in the debate on the Scotland Bill on 27th July the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that abortion had been placed in the list of reserved matters and that that decision could be reviewed by agreement between the two parliaments—that is, the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish parliament. So, in fairness, I think that the same ought to apply in regard to the position of the Northern Ireland Assembly vis-à-vis what it recognises, and what we all recognise, as this sovereign Parliament.
I hope—indeed, expect—that the Minister will reflect on what has been said in the debate and on that statement made by his noble friend from the Scottish Office and thereby perhaps find a way of bringing forward a modest amendment on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 259 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 45, line 18, at end insert—
("Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) do not include any matter within paragraph 16 of Schedule 2.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 262 and 263:
Page 45, line 23, after ("persons") insert ("(other than the Ministry of Defence Police)").
Page 45, line 24, at end insert ("; the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 264:
Page 45, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—
(". The subject-matter of the Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) 1926.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and Amendments Nos. 272 and 279 are drafting improvements to achieve more consistency in referring to the subject matter of legislation. They do not affect the substance of the reservations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 265 and 265A not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 45, line 39, at end insert—
(". The functions and procedures of the Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will make the functions and procedures of the Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland a reserved matter for the purposes of Schedule 3. The appointment of persons to the Office of the Civil Service Commissioner for Northern Ireland will remain an excepted matter under the control of Her Majesty. We believe that it is right to continue to protect such appointments in this way. However, we felt that there was a gap in respect of provision to protect the functions and procedures of the Civil Service Commissioners. We therefore consulted all the parties about making this a reserved matter and none has objected.
The effect of the amendment will be to allow the Assembly to legislate on this matter while reserving for the Secretary of State a degree of control when considering the question of consent under the Bill. By taking the commissioners out of the transfer field, it also slims down very slightly the nature of Her Majesty's prerogative powers as respects transferred matters and prevents them from being dealt with under Clause 18. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 267 and 268:
Page 45, line 43, at end insert—
(". The subject-matter of sections 149 to 151 of and Schedules 5 and 5A to the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (Social Security Advisory Committee and Industrial Injuries Advisory Council).").
Page 45, line 43, at end insert—
(". The subject-matter of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 269:
Page 45, line 44, at beginning insert ("Import and export controls and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment extends the reservation in paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 which deals with trade in any place outside the United Kingdom to include to non-trade import and export controls. This is to cover situations where goods are being imported or exported otherwise than in the course of trade—for example, if the goods are for the importer's or the exporter's own use rather than pursuant to a commercial transaction. The areas in which there would be controls on such imports and exports include conventional arms and endangered species. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I rise briefly to point out that this amendment means that Customs and Excise will in this respect and in one or two others ultimately come under the jurisdiction of the Assembly and the executive because the latter have the responsibility of carrying out import and export controls of this kind. That is not necessarily a knock-down argument for making this an excepted matter rather than a reserved matter, but it is something that should be reflected upon within government circles.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 270:
Page 45, line 46, at end insert—
("() the furtherance of trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland;").
The noble Lord said: I shall be brief in what I have to say. In a sense this is a probing amendment because the matter was raised on Second Reading. The reason I wish to return to it is that at that time the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that this was specifically a matter for the single European market and that was why it could not be a transferred matter. However, if it is a matter for the single European market, why then is it not an excepted matter?
I believe that the furtherance of trade between the Republic and Northern Ireland is an extremely important issue fully in tune with the Good Friday agreement, and that there is a substantial bonus available from greater trade in terms of prosperity for the people of both parts of the island. One would hope to see much activity in Strand 2 and strand 3 to make sure that bonus is realised. I hope the Minister can answer my next point. If this is a matter for the single European market, why is it not excepted rather than being, as the Bill proposes, reserved, or as I propose, transferred? I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: If the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, is right—namely, that matters which come within the single market of the Community ought to be excepted—presumably paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 should refer to trade with any place outside the European Union because the measure affects not only the Republic of Ireland but also other countries within the European Union. That is a slightly wider point, but like the noble Lord, Lord Holme, I too hope that the
1872
British/Irish bodies will do their best to encourage the trade we are discussing. I hope too that the arrangements we make within the law will enable that to happen.
Lord Monson: I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and his noble friend on employing the correct term "Republic of Ireland" in their amendment rather than the incorrect term "Ireland" which is used elsewhere in the Bill.
Lord Dubs: Amendment No. 270, which has been proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Lester, deals with the reservation in paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 of trade with any place outside the United Kingdom. The noble Lords propose that the furtherance of trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland should be removed from that reservation, making it a transferred matter.
I fully agree with the noble Lords that the Assembly should be free to take measures to promote the trade of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I am sure that the Assembly will be keen to do all it can to promote Northern Ireland's exports. That is quite right. But I consider it vitally important that the Assembly should be able to promote Northern Ireland's trade, not only with the Republic of Ireland but throughout Europe and worldwide. The Bill already allows for this: subparagraph (a) of paragraph 16 carves out from the general reservation,
"the furtherance of the trade of Northern Ireland".
The proposed amendment is not therefore necessary. I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thank the noble Lord for those comments. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 271:
Page 46, line 2, at end insert—
("() any matter within paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 46, line 3, leave out ("matters dealt with by") and insert ("subject-matter of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 273 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 274:
Page 46, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert—
(". Intellectual property but not the subject-matter of Parts I and II of the Plant Varieties Act 1997 (plant varieties and the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal).").
The noble Lord said: This amendment updates the definitions in Schedule 3, "Reserved matters". Amendment No. 274 updates the terminology to reserve the whole subject of intellectual property. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 275:
Page 46, leave out lines 25 to 27 and insert—
(". Telecommunications; wireless telegraphy; the provision of programme services (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990); Internet services; electronic encryption; the subject matter of Part II of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 (electromagnetic disturbance).").
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): If this amendment is accepted, I cannot call Amendment No. 276.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 276 not moved]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 277:
Page 46, line 34, at end insert—
(". Research Councils within the meaning of the Science and Technology Act 1965.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 277 will reserve Research Councils within the meaning of the Science and Technology Act 1965 and follows a similar reservation in the Scotland Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 46, line 34, at end insert—
(" . Areas in which industry may qualify for assistance under Part III of the Industrial Development Act 1982.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 278 makes a designation of assisted areas within the meaning of the Industrial Development Act 1982 a reserved matter. This is in line with a similar reservation in the Scotland Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 278A:
Page 46, line 35, at end insert—
(" . Technical standards and requirements in relation to products in pursuance of an obligation under Community law but not standards and requirements in relation to food, agricultural or horticultural produce, fish or fish products, seeds, animal feeding stuffs, fertilisers or pesticides.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to reserve various matters relating to product standards and requirements in pursuance of an obligation under Community law but not in relation to food, agricultural and horticultural produce, fish or fish products, seeds, animal feed-stuff, fertilisers and pesticides.
The imposition of specified requirements and standards relating to goods, such as labelling and certain environmental aspects, is intended to reduce barriers to trade by harmonising essential requirements in order to provide a high level of protection in the field of product standards. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I was interested to note that several of these amendments have been recommended to us on the sole ground that they are in line with the Scotland Bill, which is not quite the message we were hearing earlier. However, as regards this amendment, I was not quite clear whether the standards and requirements in relation to food and other matters are
1874
therefore to be transferred matters. From the Minister's comments just now it sounded as if they might be excepted matters, but I do not think that is the case under the Bill.
Lord Dubs: The effect of the amendment is to reserve various matters relating to product standards and requirements in pursuance of an obligation under Community law. I have listed products which were not covered. The rest would be reserved.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Are the matters which are not covered transferred or are they excepted?
Lord Dubs: Yes, I understand that is the case.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Which does the Minister understand is the case: that they are reserved or that they are excepted? It may be a moment before inspiration hits the Minister. He appeared to be saying that they were excepted matters. Perhaps inspiration has now arrived.
Lord Dubs: Inspiration has hit me suddenly. They are transferred matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 279:
Page 46, line 36, leave out ("making and revision of plans under section 3(5)") and insert ("subject-matter of section 3(5) to (7)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 280:
Page 46, line 40, after ("1984;") insert—
("() the Data Protection Act 1998;").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment to update the reservation in respect of data protection in order to take account of the 1998 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 281:
Page 46, leave out line 43.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 282 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 282A:
Page 47, line 3, at end insert—
(" . Any matter with which a provision of this Act falling within the following sub-paragraphs solely or mainly deals—

(a) in Part III, sections (Junior Ministers) and 21;

(b) in Part IV, sections 32, 35(7), and 36(8) and Schedule 6;

(c) in Part VI, sections 58, 59(3) and (4) and 60 and Schedules 9 and 10;

(d) in Part VII, sections (Effect of certificates), (The Tribunal), (Appeals from the Tribunal) and 75 and Schedule (Tribunal established under section (The Tribunal)).

This paragraph does not apply to—

(i) any matter in respect of which it is stated by this Act that provision be made by Act of the Assembly: or

(ii) any matter to which a description specified in this Schedule or Schedule 2 is stated not to apply.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: Before we leave this schedule, perhaps I may put a question to the Minister. Why is civil defence a reserved matter? After all, unlike defence pure and simple, there is nothing remotely contentious or political about civil defence. On the contrary, it is just the sort of activity which tends to draw together people from different backgrounds and possibly create a sense of community when none has existed hitherto. Therefore, is this not just the kind of activity which ought to be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Lord Dubs: I believe the position is that civil defence is part of the United Kingdom-wide system of defence. Therefore, it is more appropriately a reserved matter than a transferred matter. It links in with civil defence throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Monson: I understand that that argument would apply to Scotland and Wales because there are land frontiers which are easy to cross. But Northern Ireland is separated by water from the rest of the United Kingdom and, therefore, it is unlikely that many civil defence units would cross the water unless there was a particularly grave emergency. Nonetheless, I float the idea and perhaps the noble Lord will think about it before the next stage.
On Question, Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Enactments protected from modification]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 282B:
Page 47, leave out lines 7 to 14 and insert—
("1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the European Communities Act 1972 shall not be modified.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not prevent an Act of the Assembly or subordinate legislation modifying section 3(3) or (4) or 11(1) of that Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 282C:
Page 47, leave out lines 18 to 35 and insert—
(". The following provisions of this Act shall not be modified—

(a) sections 71, (Provision dealing with certain reserved matters) and 72;

(b) in section 77, subsections (3) and (4); and

(c) section 80.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Standing orders: further provision]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 50, leave out lines 32 to 36.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission]:
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 51, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("to") and insert ("There shall be paid").
The noble Lord said: We now come to the schedule dealing with the new Northern Ireland human rights commission. I start by pointing out that the marginal notes on the Marshalled List are not correct. These amendments standing in my name were not debated previously. I did not speak to them and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, did not respond to them. In speaking to Amendments Nos. 284 and 285, it is very important that I emphasise that these amendments are solely concerned with the remuneration of the full-time paid commissioners who will oversee the human rights commission.
Amendment No. 284 is a paving amendment. Amendment No. 285 provides, in paragraph 3A, that the Assembly will set the level of remuneration of the commissioners in a similar way as is laid down for the funding of the commissioners of the Equal Opportunities Commission. If the Government preferred that the Secretary of State should make provision for the human rights commissioners I shall be equally happy since she is referred to in paragraph 3B. Paragraph 3C is the key matter in my opinion. It provides that commissioners' pay shall come from the Consolidated Fund, thus reinforcing their independence vis-à-vis the Northern Ireland Office and any ups and downs in its internal budgeting. If the Government would like to extend that principle to include the other staff of the commission, apart from the commissioners, I would be delighted.
My minimum objective is to put the commissioners in a clearly defined position of independence similar to that held by the ombudsman in Northern Ireland. I realise that as regards Schedule 8.11 the commissioners are not Crown servants. But I suggest that more needs to be done to assert their financial independence. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I am in some difficulty about these amendments. We have debated them previously and I understand that we have already passed them. Will the noble Lord permit me to write to him about them because I do not have with me the notes that I had a few days ago dealing with the substance of these matters. I was not aware that they were going to be raised today.
Lord Hylton: If the Minister will consult with his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, he will find out that the latter agreed last Wednesday to de-group these amendments and to deal with them when we came to the appropriate schedule. The Minister will also discover that I mentioned this point again to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in conversation this afternoon so I am a little surprised that there is not 100 per cent. liaison between Ministers. However, I shall be happy to receive a letter from the noble Lord on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 285 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 286:
Page 51, line 24, at end insert—
("(2) Where a person who by reference to any office or employment is a participant in a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 becomes a Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner, the Minister for the Civil Service may, notwithstanding any provision made under sub-paragraph (1)(c), determine that the person's service as Commissioner or Chief Commissioner shall be treated for the purposes of the scheme as service in that office or employment.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 287:
Page 51, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert ("numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment.
(2) Employment with the Commission shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a superannuation scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply, and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed) after "Commission for Racial Equality" insert—
"Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission".
(3) The Commission shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of any increase attributable to sub-paragraph (2) in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 288:
Page 51, line 37, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may also be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 289 and 290. These amendments place a duty on the Secretary of State to fund the work of the human rights commission. They do so as follows: Amendment No. 288 changes "may" to "shall" and Amendment No. 289 is consequential. Amendment No. 290 is an attempt to make sure that the commission receives adequate resources to carry out its functions which are much wider and more far-reaching than those at present conducted by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
I would consider it to be quite wrong if the new commission were to prove to be a poor relation of the equality commission. Can the Minister give any guidance on the likely share of the estimated overall cost of £5.6 million per annum given on page vii of the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill which will go to the human rights commission?
At present the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights with only five staff costs about £250,000 a year. I doubt very much whether a sum even three times greater than that would be sufficient for a fully effective new commission armed with the necessary powers. I therefore remind the Government that the political parties in Northern Ireland were quite unanimous, prior to the Belfast agreement, that a strong human rights commission was required. That view must surely still be correct. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: It is the Government's intention that there should be proper funding for the human rights commission. We believe in what it is to do and, within the limits of the usual financial constraints, we wanted to have the resources to do that job properly. The Secretary of State has the responsibility to provide proper funding for the commission and I doubt whether any further provision on the face of the Bill is necessary. If the noble Lord prefers it, however, I shall elaborate on that point when I write to him about the matter which we discussed under the previous amendment.
I wish to refer to another amendment in the noble Lord's name, Amendment No. 289. I do not believe that in drafting terms the amendment takes us forward. It is not acceptable. The word "such" does not seem to add anything to the meaning of paragraph 6 of Schedule 8. Indeed, I fear it might create uncertainty.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: When the noble Lord writes to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I hope that he will look at Amendment No. 288 sympathetically. As the Bill stands at the moment, commissioners are provided for financially but the staff are contingent on the word "may". That seems anomalous in the light of the intention which the noble Lord has just declared.
Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Lord. I shall look at the point.
Lord Hylton: What the Minister said on the substance of the amendments gives me considerable encouragement. As to the drafting point, he is more likely to be right than I. Taking into account his kind offer to write still further on this group, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 289 and 290 not moved.]
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 290A to 290D:
Page 52, line 37, leave out ("member of the Commission") and insert ("Commissioner").
Page 52, line 40, leave out ("chairman") and insert ("Chief Commissioner").
Page 52, line 42, leave out ("member, as the chairman or as a deputy chairman") and insert ("Commissioner, as the Chief Commissioner or as a Deputy Chief Commissioner").
Page 53, line 1, leave out ("member, chairman or deputy chairman") and insert ("Commissioner, the Chief Commissioner or Deputy Chief Commissioner").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 291 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 291A to 291C:
Page 53, line 12, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may with the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel").
Page 53, leave out line 13 and insert ("Commissioners—").
Page 53, leave out line 17.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 292 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 292A:
Page 53, line 19, leave out ("employ staff subject to") and insert ("with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 293 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No: 293A:
Page 53, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert ("numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment—

(a) employ such staff as the Commission considers necessary;

(b) employ the services of such other persons as the Commission considers expedient for any particular purpose.

(2) The Commission may, in the case of such of its staff as may be determined by it with the approval of the Department of Economic Development and the Department of Finance and Personnel, pay such pensions, allowances or gratuities, or provide and maintain such pension schemes, as may be so determined.
(3) Payments made or expenses incurred under this paragraph shall be defrayed out of money appropriated by Act of the Assembly.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 294 to 297 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 297A:
Page 53, line 35, at beginning insert ("Expenditure defrayed under this paragraph shall be defrayed out of money appropriated by Act of the Assembly and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 298 to 307 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 307A to 307K:
Page 54, line 7, leave out from ("shall") to ("the") in line 8 and insert ("lay a copy of the statement of accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report before").
Page 54, line 17, leave out ("non-members)") and insert ("persons who are not Commissioners)").
Page 54, line 22, leave out ("chairman or deputy chairman") and insert ("Chief Commissioner or Deputy Chief Commissioner").
Page 54, line 23, leave out ("member") and insert ("Commissioner").
Page 54, line 25, leave out ("III") and insert ("II").
Page 54, line 26, leave out ("(other disqualifying offices)") and insert ("(bodies whose members are disqualified)").
Page 54, line 27, leave out ("Member of").
Page 54, line 28, leave out ("III") and insert ("II").
Page 54, line 29, leave out ("(other disqualifying offices)") and insert ("(bodies whose members are disqualified)").
Page 54, line 30, leave out ("Member of").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 307A to 307K, with the exception that there is no Amendment No. 307G.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Equality: enforcement of duties]:
[Amendment No. 308 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 308A:
Page 55, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert—
("(c) carry out the functions conferred on it by the following provisions of this Schedule.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 309 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 309A:
Page 55, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
("1A.—(1) A public authority to which this sub-paragraph applies shall before the end of the period of six months beginning with the commencement of this Schedule submit a scheme to the Commission.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies to any public authority except one which—

(a) does not exist at the commencement of this Schedule; or

(b) is notified in writing by the Commission that that sub-paragraph does not apply to it.

1B.—(1) Where it thinks appropriate, the Commission may—

(a) request a public authority to which paragraph 1A(1) does not apply to make a scheme;

(b) request any public authority to make a revised scheme.

(2) A public authority shall respond to a request under this paragraph by submitting a scheme to the Commission before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date of the request.
2.—(1) A scheme shall show how the public authority proposes to fulfil the duties imposed by section 60 in relation to the relevant functions.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 310 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 310A to 310H:
Page 55, line 23, after ("access") insert ("to information and").
Page 55, line 29, at end insert—
("() In this paragraph "the relevant functions" means the functions of the public authority or, in the case of a scheme submitted in response to a request which specifies particular functions of the public authority, those functions.").
Page 55, line 32, at end insert ("; and
(b) such other persons as may be specified in the directions.").
Page 55, line 35, at end insert—
("() Where the Commission refers a scheme to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1)(b), it shall notify the Assembly in writing that it has done so and send the Assembly a copy of the scheme.").
Page 55, line 41, leave out ("1(c)") and insert ("1B(1)(b)").
Page 55, line 41, at end insert—
("() Where the Secretary of State—

(a) requests a revised scheme under sub-paragraph (1)(b); or

(b) makes a scheme under sub-paragraph (1)(c),

he shall notify the Assembly in writing that he has done so and, in a case falling within paragraph (b), send the Assembly a copy of the scheme.").
Page 55, line 45, leave out ("1(c)") and insert ("1B(1)(b)").
Page 56, line 28, at end insert—
("() Where the Commission—

(a) sends a report to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (2)(b); or

(b) refers a matter to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (2)(c),

it shall notify the Assembly in writing that it has done so and, in a case falling within paragraph (a), send the Assembly a copy of the report.
() Where the Secretary of State gives directions to a public authority under sub-paragraph (3)(b), he shall notify the Assembly in writing that he has done so.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Devolution issues]:
[Amendments Nos. 311 to 324 not moved.]
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 324A:
After Schedule 11, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE

  TRIBUNAL ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION (The Tribunal)
  Introductory
  1. In this Schedule "the Tribunal" means the tribunal established under section (The Tribunal).
  Members
  2.—(1) The Tribunal shall consist of such number of members appointed by the Lord Chancellor as he may determine.
  (2) A member of the Tribunal shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment and shall, on ceasing to hold office, be eligible for re-appointment.
  (3) A member of the Tribunal may resign his office at any time by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor.
  Chairman
  3.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint one of the members of the Tribunal to be its chairman.
  (2) The chairman may nominate a member as deputy chairman to act in his absence.
  (3) A member may not be appointed as chairman or nominated as deputy chairman, unless he holds, or has held, office as a judge of the High Court, the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, the Court of Appeal or the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.
  (4) The chairman may resign his office at any time by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor.
  Payments to members
  4.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may pay to the members of the Tribunal such remuneration and allowances as he may determine.
  (2) The Lord Chancellor may, if he thinks fit in the case of any member of the Tribunal pay such pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of the member, or such sums towards the provision of such pension, allowance or gratuity, as he may determine.
  (3) If a person ceases to be a member of the Tribunal and it appears to the Lord Chancellor that there are special circumstances which make it right that the person should receive compensation, he may pay to that person a sum of such amount as he may determine.
  Proceedings
  5. The Tribunal shall sit at such times and in such places as the Lord Chancellor may direct.
  6. The Tribunal shall be deemed to be duly constituted if it consists of the chairman or deputy chairman and two or more other members.
  7. The chairman or, in his absence, the deputy chairman, shall preside at sittings of the Tribunal.
  Staff
  8. The Lord Chancellor may appoint such officers and servants for the Tribunal as he thinks fit.
  Expenses
  9. The Lord Chancellor shall defray the remuneration of persons appointed under paragraph 8 and such expenses of the Tribunal as he thinks fit.
  Disqualification of Tribunal Members
  10. In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) at the appropriate place insert—
  "The Tribunal established under section (The Tribunal) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998".
  11. In Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) at the appropriate place insert—
  "The Tribunal established under section (The Tribunal) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 325 and 325A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendment No. 325B not moved.]
  Schedule 12 [Construction of references in existing laws]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment Nos. 326 to 334:
  Page 61, leave out lines 21 and 22.
  Page 61, line 24, at beginning insert—
  ("() A reference to an Act or enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall be construed as including a reference to an Order in Council under section 1(3) of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972.").
  Page 61, line 29, leave out ("established under section 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973") and insert ("so established").
  Page 61, line 31, at end insert—
  ("() A reference to a Measure of the Assembly so established shall be construed as including a reference to an Order in Council under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.").
  Page 62, line 1, leave out ("4") and insert ("5").
  Page 62, line 27, at end insert—
  ("() References to Northern Ireland Executive authorities shall be construed as references to Ministers and the Northern Ireland departments.").
  Page 63, line 1, after ("shall") insert (", in relation to a function,").
  Page 63, line 2, leave out ("that department") and insert ("the department which exercises that function").
  Page 63, line 10, leave out ("in") and insert ("of").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 326 to 334 en bloc. These amendments concern the construction of references in existing laws. The government amendments to the clause are consequential, drafting or technical.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 13 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 334A to 342A:
  Page 64, line 22, leave out ("71(1)(b)") and insert ("(Provision dealing with certain reserved matters)").
  Page 64, line 23, at end insert—
  ("Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I.12))
  . In Part II of Schedule 1 to the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (rule-making authorities), for "section 40 of and paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973" substitute "section 77(5) of and paragraph 8 of Schedule 12 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998".").
  Page 64, line 23, at end insert—
  ("Mental Health Act 1983 (c.20)
  .—(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 134(3)(a) (correspondence of patients), after "Parliament" insert "or of the Northern Ireland Assembly".
  (3) In section 141 (members of the House of Commons suffering from mental illness), after subsection (9) insert—
  "(10) This section also has effect in relation to members of the Northern Ireland Assembly but as if—

  (a) references to the House of Commons were to the Assembly and references to the Speaker were to the Presiding Officer; and

  (b) in subsection (7), for "provided by Parliament" there were substituted "appropriated by Act of the Assembly".").

  Page 64, line 23, at end insert—
  ("Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45)
  In section 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (members of the House of Commons who are adjudged bankrupt etc.), after subsection (6B) insert—
  "(6C) Subsection (1), as applied to a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly by virtue of section 28(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, has effect as if "or Northern Ireland" were omitted; and subsections (4) to (6) have effect in relation to such a member as if—

  (a) references to the House of Commons were to the Assembly and references to the Speaker were to the Presiding Officer; and

  (b) in subsection (4), for "under this section" there were substituted "under section 28(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by virtue of this section"."").

  Page 64, line 23, at end insert—
  ("Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.48)
  .—(1) The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 12(9) (duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works), for "166A" substitute "166B".
  (3) In section 153(2) (qualification for copyright protection), for "166A" substitute "166B".
  (4) In section 163(6) (Crown copyright), for "166A" substitute "166B".
  (5) In section 164(1) (Crown copyright in Acts of Parliament, etc.), after "Scottish Parliament" insert ", Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly".
  (6) After section I 66A insert—
  "Copyright in Bills of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  166B.—(1) Copyright in every Bill introduced into the Northern Ireland Assembly belongs to the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission.
  (2) Copyright under this section subsists from the time when the text of the Bill is handed in to the Assembly for introduction—

  (a) until the Bill receives Royal Assent, or

  (b) if the Bill does not receive Royal Assent, until it is withdrawn or rejected or no further proceedings of the Assembly may be taken in respect of it.

  (3) References in this Part to Parliamentary copyright (except in section 165) include copyright under this section; and, except as mentioned above, the provisions of this Part apply in relation to copyright under this section as to other Parliamentary copyright.
  (4) No other copyright, or right in the nature of copyright, subsists in a Bill after copyright has once subsisted under this section; but without prejudice to the subsequent operation of this section in relation to a Bill which, not having received Royal Assent, is later reintroduced into the Assembly."
  (7) In the definition of "parliamentary proceedings" in section 178 (definitions), the words ", of the New Northern Ireland Assembly" shall cease to have effect.
  (8) In section 179 (index of defined expressions), in column 2 of the entry for "Parliamentary copyright", for "and 166A(3)" substitute "166A(3) and 166B(3)".").
  Page 64, line 38, at end insert—
  ("() In section 9(6) (approval of Code of Practice), for "section 27(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973" substitute "section 24(1) or (2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998".").
  Page 65, line 12, at end insert—
  ("Environment and Safety Information (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (S.I. 1993/3159 (N.I. 14))
  In the second column of Schedule 1 to the Environment and Safety Information (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (enforcing authorities), for "section 43(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973" substitute "section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998".").
  Page 65, line 12, at end insert—
  ("Olympic Symbol etc. Protection Act 1995 (c.32)
  . In section 4(16) of the Olympic Symbol etc. Protection Act 1995 (definitions), in the definition of "Royal Commission", for "by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the prerogative powers of Her Majesty delegated to him under section 7(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973" substitute "by a Minister, within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, or Northern Ireland department in pursuance of the prerogative powers of Her Majesty exercisable by the Minister or department under section 18 of that Act".).
  Page 65, line 40, at end insert—
  ("Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 (c.12)
  12. In Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 (the Assembly), for paragraph 8 substitute—
  "8.—(1) For the purposes of the law of defamation, absolute privilege shall attach to—

  (a) the making of a statement in proceedings of the Assembly; and

  (b) the publication of a statement under the Assembly's authority.

  (2) In this paragraph "statement" has the same meaning as in the Defamation Act 1996."").
  Page 65, line 40, at end insert—
  ("Data Protection Act 1998 (c.29)
  .—(1) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 to the Data Protection Act 1998 (miscellaneous exceptions), for "Northern Ireland department" substitute "Northern Ireland authority".
  (2) Renumber that paragraph (as so amended) as sub-paragraph (1) and after that provision as so renumbered insert—
  "(2) In this paragraph "Northern Ireland authority" means the First Minister, the deputy First Minister, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department."").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 334A to 342A. This series of amendments deals with minor and consequential amendments following on from the Bill. The grouping list does not include a number of amendments to the schedule which were covered in earlier debates. The main one was Amendment No. 342 which the Committee may recall provided the shadow Assembly with full privilege from the date of Royal Assent rather than the qualified privilege provided for in the elections Act. The other amendments are, as the title

  1885
  to the schedule suggests, purely minor and consequential. Perhaps the most important is Amendment No. 338 which confers on the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission copyright in Bills of the Assembly.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 14 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 343:
  Page 66, line 10, at end insert—
  ("Ministerial offices
  . Any determination of—

  (a) the number of Ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers; and

  (b) the functions to be exercisable by the holder of each such office,

  made before the appointed day shall on and after that day have effect as if it had been made under section (Ministerial offices).").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 343 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 343A, 343B, 344, 345, 346, 347A and 348. These amendments are transitional and are designed to ensure a smooth transition between direct rule and devolution. In some cases, for example Amendments Nos. 346 and 344, the amendments make clear that appointments or agreements under earlier enactments made during the period of direct rule will continue to apply after devolution. A number of the other amendments, for example Amendments Nos. 343 and 345, concern appointments, elections or arrangements made during the shadow period of the Assembly. The agreement is clear that the institutions it establishes should seek to meet and make progress during the shadow phase of the Assembly's life. Clearly, it would be strange if useful progress made during the shadow phase was not able to be carried forward after devolution but had to be revisited after the appointed day. Accordingly, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 343A to 346:
  Page 66, line 32, leave out ("by the Secretary of State") and insert ("or elected").
  Page 66, line 33, after ("1998") insert ("who holds office immediately").
  Page 66, line 35, at end insert—
  ("Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland
  . Any appointment made by Her Majesty under section 36(1)(d) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 before the appointed day shall on and after that day have effect as if it had been an appointment made by Her Majesty on the nomination of the Assembly under section 51.").
  Page 66, line 40, at end insert—
  ("Civic Forum
  . Any such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section (Civic Forum) which are made and approved before the commencement of that section shall have effect, after that commencement, as if they had been made and approved under that section.").
  Page 67, line 4, at end insert—
  ("Relations with Republic of Ireland
  . The repeal effected by this Act of section 12 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 shall not affect the operation of any agreement or arrangement made under that section.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 347 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 347A and 348:
  Page 67, line 14, at end insert—
  ("Discrimination by public authorities
  .The repeals effected by this Act shall not affect the operation of section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 (read with section 23 of that Act)—

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

  (b) so far as section 19 relates otherwise than as mentioned in sub-paragraph (a), in relation to any act done before the commencement of section 61.

  . Section (Effect of certificates) shall have effect—

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

  (b) in relation to any act done before the commencement of section 61, as if the reference to that section were a reference to section 19 of that Act so far as relating otherwise than as mentioned in sub-paragraph (a); and

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

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

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

  Page 67, line 14, at end insert—
  ("Members' Pensions
  The repeals effected by this Act shall not affect the operation of the Ministerial Offices Act (Northern Ireland) 1952, the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 or the Members' Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 in relation to service completed before the appointed day.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 15 [Repeals]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 349 to 378:
  Page 67, line 23, at end insert—

  ("14 & 15 Geo 5 c.11 (N.I.).

  Ministers (Temporary Exercise of Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1924.

  The whole Act.")

  Page 67, line 26, at end insert—

  ("1 & 2 Eliz 2 c.3.

  Public Works Loans Act 1952.

  Section 6.

  1 & 2 Eliz 2 c.15 (N.I.).

  Ministerial Offices Act (Northern Ireland) 1952.

  The whole Act.

  2 & 3 Eliz 2 c.33 (N.I.).

  Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.

  Section 13(2). In section 46(2), in the definition of "the constitutional laws of Northern Ireland", the words "the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and" and "amending or extending it or otherwise".

  1887

  1965 c.18 (N.I.).

  Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1965.

  The whole Act.

  1969 c.7 (N.I.).

  Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.

  Section 4.")

  Page 67, line 33, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Section 33(1).")

  Page 67, line 41, at end insert—

  ("1975 c.24.

  House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.

  In Schedule 1, in Part II, the entries relating to the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Disability Council; in Part III, the entries relating to the Additional Commissioner of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland.

  1975 c.25.

  Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.

  Section 5(1). In Schedule 1, in Part II, the entries relating to the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland, the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Disability Council; in Part III, the entries relating to the Additional Commissioner of the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland and the Additional Commissioner of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland. Schedule 2.")

  Page 67, line 42, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Section 58 (1).")

  Page 67, line 43, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Schedule 6.")

  Page 67, line 43, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1976/426 (N.1.8).

  Members' Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.

  The whole Order.")

  Page 67, line 44, column 3, at beginning insert—

  ("In Article 2(2), the definition of "the interim period".")

  Page 67, line 45, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 6, paragraph 2.")

  Page 67, line 46, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I.12).

  Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.

  In Article 7(1), the words from "subject to" to "1974". Article 11(4). In Schedule 4, paragraph 14.")

  Page 67, line 47, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1982/713 (N.I.10).

  Probation Board (Northern Ireland) Order 1982.

  In Schedule 1, paragraph 1(2).")

  Page 68, leave out lines 6 and 7.
  Page 68, line 10, at end insert—

  ("1986 c.56.

  Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.

  In Schedule 3, paragraphs 1 and 2.")

  Page 68, line 12, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1986/595 (N.I.4).

  Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

  In Schedule 5, in Part II the amendment of the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1965.")

  Page 68, line 22, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1987/2203 (N.I.22).

  Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

  In Schedule 4, paragraph 1.")

  Page 68, line 24, column 3, at beginning insert—

  ("In section 21(1), the definition of "the Commission".")

  Page 68, line 24, column 3, after ("paragraphs") insert ("2,").
  Page 68, line 30, at end insert—

  ("1990 c.42.

  Broadcasting Act 1990.

  In Schedule 20, paragraph 19.")

  Page 68, line 33, column 3, at end insert ("and (5)").
  Page 68, line 34, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 5, paragraph 2.")

  Page 68, line 49, column 3, at beginning insert—

  ("In section 167(2), the words "section 177 (co-ordination with Northern Ireland)".")

  Page 68, line 49, at end insert—

  ("1993 c.49.

  Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993.

  In section 163(2), the words "section 153 (co-ordination with Great Britain)".")

  Page 68, line 49, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1993/1252 (N.I.5).

  Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.

  Article 8(6A).

  1994 c.26.

  Trade Marks Act 1994.

  In Schedule 4, the entry in paragraph 1(2) relating to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.")

  Page 68, line 49, at end insert—

  ("1995 c.34.

  Child Support Act 1995.

  Section 29(2) to (4).

  S.I. 1995/2702 (N.I.13).

  Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

  Article 20.")

  Page 68, line 49, at end insert—

  ("1996 c.11.

  Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996.

  The whole Act.

  1996 c.22.

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.

  In Schedule 6, paragraph 1.")

  Page 69, line 10, column 3, after ("of") insert ("sections 19 to 22 of").
  Page 69, line 17, column 3, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs 1 and").
  Page 69, line 21, at end insert—

  ("1998 c.00.

  Northern Ireland Act 1998.

  In Schedule 13, paragraph 12.")

  Page 69, line 21, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1998/749 (N.I.4).

  Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.

  Article 7.")

  Page 69, line 21, at end insert—

  ("1998 c.00.

  Registration of Political Parties Act 1998.

  In section 2(2)(e) the word "New".")

  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 349 to 378. This schedule contains a whole series of repeals necessary for the smooth running of devolution. The repeals are made for a number of reasons. Often the provisions in the earlier enactments have been replicated or replaced in this Bill, thus making them redundant. A number of earlier pieces of legislation dealing with political development in Northern Ireland will no longer be needed after devolution, hence the Northern Ireland (Entry into Negotiations) Act 1996 and the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 are repealed in their entirety. Other amendments are much more minor, for example reflecting changes in the names of organisations as a result of the Bill and other such consequential effects. I do not believe that any of the changes has political significance, but they are important for the smooth running of the devolution process and the integrity of the statute book. Accordingly, I commend them to the Committee.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: As this is the last group of amendments on the Marshalled List to be dealt with in Committee—the group comprises 30-odd amendments—I believe it only right to record that the Government have been sufficiently flexible to move in
  1890
  the course of the Bill. I lost count at 270 amendments, some of which were withdrawn before we got there. That leaves out of account the fact that on half a dozen occasions the Government have opposed that clauses stand part in the course of the Bill. That shows great flexibility of mind which we hope will continue at Report stage when we are promised a good number of further amendments.
  The Minister has had a long stint in moving these amendments. I only hope that at least he has now got more of them right than when the Bill left the Commons. It is the most wonderful advertisement for the existence of a second Chamber.
  Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Lord. I am glad he recognises that the Government have, as ever, been flexible. We have certainly listened to the arguments. As I have said before, there will be further amendments at Report stage. I appreciate the very helpful way in which he and other noble Lords have contributed to these debates.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since the debate that follows is at the conclusion of the whipped business rather than a debate in the dinner hour, the debate can last for an hour-and-a-half and there is no restriction on the length of speeches other than the general restriction in the Companion which advises that speeches should be confined to 15 minutes.

  Salmon Diseases
  7 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to prevent the spread of infectious salmon anaemia and gyrodactylus salaris into and within the United Kingdom.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for the advice he has given. I shall try to keep within the 15 minutes. As I planned to keep within 12 minutes, that might not be too difficult.
  The Question relates to two problems regarding salmon. One is infectious salmon anaemia which is a viral disease; and the other is gyrodactylus salaris which is a parasite. Both are present in Norway: one has spread to Scotland; and the other must not. Neither should have done so, but one has.
  I start with the infectious salmon anaemia. I am a long time supporter of fish farming. It has brought jobs to many sensitive and remote areas of the West Highlands and Islands. I understand from the latest figures given only yesterday in another place that there are 1,100 direct full-time and 200 part-time jobs on the coastal sites, and some 6,500 jobs downstream or upstream of farm sites involved in, I imagine, smokeries, fish processing, construction of cages, and so on. The

  1891
  coming of fish farming has led to a drastic reduction in the price of salmon. That has had a beneficial effect on wild salmon by reducing the temptation to poachers and by making netting uneconomic and easier to buy out.
  However, nothing is all good and unfortunately over the years the downside of fish farming has become more and more evident. As the industry has grown in the lochs of the West Highlands, so the population of salmon and especially sea trout has declined in the adjacent rivers, in certain cases almost to the point of extinction. Tonight is not the occasion to speak of the dramatic impact made by the population explosions in the sea cages of sea lice which then spread to the wild population with devastating results, especially for sea trout.
  We are tonight talking about infectious salmon anaemia. I have before me an excellent leaflet published by the Scottish Office outlining the problem. Infectious salmon anaemia is a disease which causes anaemia, visceral haemorrhaging and high mortality in salmon in cages. Until earlier this year it had been confined to Norway and Canada. Suddenly it has appeared in Scotland. On 1st September in answer to questions from me, the Minister told me that ISA had been confirmed in eight sites in Scotland. Can he update that answer? I think that there are some more. I believe that one more site in Shetland has now been identified. Can he tell us how many sites have now been affected by infectious salmon anaemia?
  Can the Minister confirm that almost all the sites are owned by a Norwegian company, Norsk Hydro? As I now have a few more minutes, perhaps I can share some slight amusement—it would be amusing if the subject were not so serious—by reading a press release from Norsk Hydro about the problems faced by GSP, its Scottish subsidiary, which states:
  "The financial performance of GSP is the result of the poor competitive position of the Scottish salmon farming industry, made worse in its case by the consequences of the discovery of infectious salmon anaemia … in Scotland, including a number of GSP farms".
  I like the way it states that it has been discovered in Scotland as though the company somehow has nothing to do with it. The fact is that it has by and large been in Norsk Hydro farms. I think that I am right in saying—the Minister can confirm it—that the first outbreaks were identified in Norsk Hydro farms. I ask the Minister, as I ask the House: is it a coincidence that a disease which has been in Norway for 10 years now appears in Norwegian-owned cages in Scotland? Is it Norwegian husbandry which is wrong, or has the disease been brought from Norway? That is a matter we should address.
  In answer to another of my questions, the Minister said that the Government have not yet established how the disease spread to Scotland. Frankly, it seems to me, that there is a prima facie case that it has spread from Norway. I understand that well-boats move between Scotland and Norway. Why do they move between Scotland and Norway? There is a total ban on the movement of live salmonoids into this country. Well-boats cannot legally bring in any live salmonoids, either smolts, parr or small salmon ready for ongrowing.
  1892
  They cannot bring them into this country. It is illegal. So why do the well-boats commute between Norway and Scotland? I cannot believe that it is a pleasure trip.
  Even if the boats have not been slipping live fish into the country—I have no evidence of that; and one assumes that they have not because it would be illegal—have they been disinfecting their boats correctly when they move from Norway to Scotland? If not, the virus could be brought in the water held in the well-boats, or perhaps at the bottom of the well-boats. If there is a little moisture left, the virus can live.
  Given the seriousness of the disease, there should be a ban on well-boat movements between Norway and this country. That seems a sensible precautionary step to take. I know that the Government have taken steps to stop the movement of live fish from any site where the disease is found or suspected; and that all salmon in an infected site are slaughtered. Is the Minister satisfied with the disposal of the blood and carcasses from a large tonnage of slaughtered fish? Is he sure that the movement of the blood and carcasses thereafter is sufficiently safe so that there is no contamination of other waters, either coastal waters where there are salmon farms, or rivers? Can the Minister assure me that he has no intention of changing his slaughter policy which seems to me to be the only sure way to prevent the spread of this disease to other fish farms and to the wild stock which is absolutely free of ISA?
  On 30th July the Minister told me that there were some 106 farms sharing the same sea area—sea loch, or whatever—as those infected. Has that changed? I suspect it has because if new outbreaks have been reported then new farms in the adjacent area will be affected. I understand also from the Minister's answers to me that official approval is needed if any live fish are to be moved from any of the sites to other sites. I should have thought it would be more sensible to ban the movement of live fish from a site which may be in close proximity to an infected site. There is no problem about marketing the fish because, as no doubt the Minister will say, the problem does not affect humans. So fish in an adjacent cage where the outbreak has not been confirmed, or where there is no sign of the outbreak, can be marketed. But just in case in three, four or five months' time it transpires that the disease is in that cage too, I should have thought that there should be no movement of live fish to other sites that are currently unaffected.
  My final point on cage sites concerns the fallow period before restocking. The Minister told me that no final decision had been taken, but that a six-month period was being considered. Has any hard and fast decision been taken? Is six months enough? Should we not make the fallow period unlimited until we know more about this disease?
  I turn now to wild salmon which, as your Lordships will know, is of slight interest to me. I am grateful to the Minister for the full Answer he gave me on

  1893
  3rd September to the Question of whether ISA could spread to wild salmon. As I have time, I will read his reply. He stated:
  "Wild salmon populations are potentially susceptible to infectious salmon anaemia in the same way as farmed salmon; the disease may therefore be transmitted in either direction.
  "There are no known case's of infectious salmon anaemia in wild salmon".
  I wish to underline that because there is some suggestion from people who wish to disguise the source of the disease that it may have come from the wild salmon stocks in Scotland. The Minister was clear in stating that there are no known cases of infectious salmon anaemia in wild salmon. He continued:
  "However, the effects of diseases on wild populations are difficult to determine because unhealthy fish are normally rapidly removed by predation. There is no experimental evidence that sea trout can carry the ISA virus without being affected by the disease and that sea trout carriers can infect salmon".—[Official Report, 3/9/98; col. WA55.]
  Therefore, there is a question about the transfer of this disease from farmed salmon to wild salmon.
  I understand the problem because it is easy to see the disease quickly in a fish cage. It is not easy to see it in the wild. The Minister said in his Answer that predators take any sickly fish. We are not seeing large quantities of fish in one place—at least, I have not—and we do not see them in the same way in cages. But I wonder what monitoring there is of wild stocks, especially in rivers adjacent to infected sites. For example, two of the infected sites are in Loch Creran, an area I know well. The River Creran enters at the top. It contained wild salmon and I wonder whether they are being monitored to see whether there is any effect. There are other places where the disease has been identified in fish cages and there are adjacent rivers with salmon stocks, probably much reduced, as has the run of salmon in the River Creran. Nonetheless, they ought to be monitored.
  I am sure that every time the Minister hears about the disease he is told that the industry demands compensation. I could not help notice that Norsk Hydro was in the same kind of boat, looking for something like £10 million in compensation. The Minister will be refreshed to hear a different view. If the industry has brought the problem on itself I see no reason why taxpayers' money should be used. If there is evidence that the disease was introduced by Norsk Hydro I do not believe it merits any compensation.
  However, the people I feel sorry for are shellfish farmers because they have been caught up in the problem quite accidentally. A friend of mine who farms in Loch Creran has been caught because he is not allowed to move his stock from one area to another. That is an essential part of the project, because it is very much a hatchery/nursery operation and small scallops, oysters or mussels are moved to other sites where they are grown on. He has not been allowed to do that because of fears that inside the shellfish there will be some water containing the virus. That is understandable and I commend the Scottish Office for being careful. However, I believe that shellfish growers who are caught in this dilemma deserve a great deal of sympathy. It is the second time they have been caught on the
  1894
  downside of salmon farming. Many were caught by the use of anti-fouling on fish cages, which had a dramatic effect on nearby shellfish farms. I hope that the Government are considering help for any shellfish farmer who has been affected by the problem.
  I turn to gyrodactylus salaris. It is a parasite which affects salmon parr and other fish in fresh water. It was introduced into Norway from the Baltic where Baltic salmon are tolerant of the parasite. Atlantic salmon are not and between 30 and 40 Norwegian rivers have completely lost their salmon stocks. The Scottish Office has produced an excellent leaflet, as has MAFF. A poster has been promised for ports of entry. I wonder whether it is available and is being shown at the ports of entry.
  I understand that in Iceland any visiting angler must show evidence that his gear has been disinfected. Although I have not been able to confirm it, I understand that he has to show a vet's certificate. Should we not do the same? Should we not ban the movement into this country of the angling gear of anglers who have been abroad. Furthermore, I believe that we should be in touch with our friends in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that we have a co-ordinated response to the danger in these islands. If the disease reached the Republic of Ireland it would reach here, too, as it would the other way round.
  I return to the question of well-boats because they may have a role, too. I am concerned at the possibility of the disease being brought in from Norway by well-boats. I know that it is illegal to bring in live fish, but I can see a temptation to bring in to this country smolts or parr, which would be freshwater, in the well. If that were to happen and the fish were to be put into freshwater sites here, the parasite could easily be introduced. Indeed, during the Shetland business the Minister in a press release stated:
  "Evidence is to hand which suggests a possible link involving well-boats between the confirmed Shetland site and one of those already identified as affected on the west coast".
  That is concerned with ISA, but my worry also encompasses gyrodactylus salaris. If the disease were introduced into this country it would be a disaster not just for salmon anglers and salmon fishing, but for salmon farmers, too. It would affect the hatchery stage in fresh water. Salmon angling employs just as many people as salmon farming. I am sure that the three speakers who are to join me in the debate will agree. Perhaps it has a greater downstream effect on many rural economies with shops, hotels, petrol stations and so forth drawing trade from visiting anglers. So whether it be the ISA here already or the danger of gyrodactylus salaris spreading here, we must control and regulate salmon farming in order to protect our stocks.
  My noble friend Lord Nickson, who would dearly have loved to be here but cannot, in his Salmon Strategy Task Force Report called for a single regulatory body for all aspects of the installation, development and operation of salmon farms and for the strengthening of bodies such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Frankly, although people worry about planning controls and the siting of cages, my worry is the simple

  1895
  one of the need to control disease and parasites both within and outwith the cages as it may transfer to wild salmon and sea trout.
  In fairness, I should conclude by saying that the Scottish Office has moved quickly on the two problems of ISA and gyrodactylus salaris. I hope that this short debate will persuade it to move further and constantly to have before it the precautionary principle that if we do not know let us be sure. Let us "mak siccar", to use an old Scottish expression. I can assure your Lordships that it will have the support of all of us who are interested in salmon stocks and salmon angling and I believe also the support of all those involved in fish farming.
  7.18 p.m.
  Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. My main concern is the infectious salmon anaemia in the Scottish fish farms. I shall not wander into the many problems raised by the noble Lord, especially from his local knowledge gained during his pursuits in the Scottish salmon rivers.
  This is the first time we have debated ISA and it is to be hoped that we shall have a full explanation from my noble friend the Minister. First, how has the disease come about? What are its origins? When was it first detected? It may well have been established that it came from Norway and possibly Canada. Unbelievably, after it had affected and closed fish farms in those countries, it came across to Scotland. Will the Minister say when it was detected in Scotland. Was it not possible to do more to control the spread of the disease?
  It would appear that now 10 salmon farms have been closed; another 11 are on the endangered list; more than 3,000 tonnes of fish have been destroyed; and 179 fish farms have been placed under control. It is having a devastating effect on the output of farmed salmon and the income of the salmon farmers. I took note of what the noble Lord said about the fact that they may be mainly from the Norwegian fish farms but there could be others. Is there to be a compensation scheme either from Her Majesty's Government or from the European Union? Will there be any financial assistance at all? There has not only been loss of stock but also one must take into account cleaning, the disinfection of the site and the six months during which it must lie fallow before further use.
  But now and most important, what is the Government's stated position on the safe consumption of that diseased salmon? I know that some supermarkets are refusing to stock it. But the public are entitled to know that there is no public health risk. Let us not go through a salmon fish BSE crisis. The Government must clear the air as a matter of urgency.
  To what extent and for how long have we been importing salmon from Canada and Norway? Those of us who take an interest in these matters—we have debated them in the past—believe that Norway in particular has been guilty of dumping salmon and even
  1896
  undermining the fish farms in Scotland. But do we believe that any of those salmon imports from Norway were diseased and sold in our supermarkets?
  I came across the phrase, "It is not believed to affect human health." That is not good enough. We must be certain, especially when it is noted that some of the diseased farms are Norwegian owned. There is the suspicion also that live fish from those farms have been introduced to a Shetland farm, spreading the disease much wider in Scotland. Indeed, it would appear that reports indicate that more than 200 sites are now being placed in quarantine. Is that infectious disease out of control? Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether any proceedings are being taken in relation to what may be regarded as the illegal movements of diseased fish. Has the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—I emphasise "and Food"—become involved in frank discussions with the Scottish Office on the matter of diseased food? What advice is being given to supermarkets?
  The Salmon and Trout Association, of which I am a council member, has been concerned by the growth of salmon farming and the lack of proper planning controls. For some years now it has called for independent regulation of the industry. Indeed, we debated that in the House on the report of the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, on the Scottish salmon strategy task force over a year ago. Have the Government given any thought to that?
  Finally, we are now fully aware that ISA is highly infectious; that there is no known cure; and that it is spreading so rapidly it could very seriously affect the whole of the industry. Thousands of jobs are threatened; many redundancies are being declared; and with escapes of diseased salmon, the wild salmon, with cross-infection, are in jeopardy. If Norway's fish rabies—gyrodactylus salaris—comes to Scotland, then the industry and all our salmon, farmed or wild, are likely to be severely diminished.
  This is a major question for my noble friend and for the Scottish Office in liaison with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We shall want to know more about protection and prevention. I should like to know what the Government are going to do about it.
  7.25 p.m.
  Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow such well-known fishermen as my noble friend Lord Mackay and the noble Lord, Lord Mason. I have been fascinated to listen to their account of the current situation.
  I speak as a former fisheries Minister in Scotland. I visited our fish farms on many occasions. I also took the Norwegian Minister around our fish farms in Scotland to show him how important the industry is to Scotland in terms of employment, as noble Lords have said, and to bring home to him the great difficulties that Norway was causing Scotland by over-production and by the requirement to bring in a minimum import price in order that there was some degree of fairness between Norway and Scotland. The strong pound, which is the Government's responsibility, has certainly not helped

  1897
  the position as regards the minimum import price but that is a matter other than the one which we are discussing this evening.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that other issues like planning and the position of the Crown Commissioners relative to planning have caused many Scottish Office Ministers a great deal of concern over the years since the war.
  I ask the Minister how urgently and seriously he takes this situation to be. I was speaking only yesterday to the chairman of the Scottish Salmon Smokers Association which looks after the smoking of Scottish salmon. He said that he wrote to the Secretary of State on 1st October impressing upon him that the situation is getting out of hand. And yet, as of last night, he had not received an answer. It does not seem to me that that shows any great degree of urgency on the part of the Scottish Office.
  It is serious for fish farms. If it is not eradicated, it will be very serious for fresh salmon and smoked salmon, not because of the health risks, with which I shall deal in a moment, because there is absolutely no risk to health for humans, but because of what will inevitably be a lack of supply.
  Those farms which have ISA have been culled. That applies to all sizes of fish—the whole lot—and the whole cycle of reproduction of the salmon goes back to the start. That means that, inevitably, it will be some years before those farms which have been closed are able to produce fish again in reasonable quantities.
  There are two aspects of this situation which I wish to highlight. As the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said, 10 farms have ISA and have been completely culled; 11 are being monitored and may be culled in the future if it turns out that they have ISA. That leaves 339 unaffected farms. Therefore, as at this moment, because the farms which have ISA have been culled and the rest are being monitored, we can say that there is no known ISA in Scotland. But from what has happened and in the light of the developing situation, it looks as though that will not hold for very much longer.
  Because of the fact that at the moment there are 339 unaffected farms, we must not over-react in terms of publicity which has such a damaging effect on the consumption of salmon, both fresh and smoked, in the United Kingdom.
  As my noble friend Lord Mackay said, ISA is common in Norway. I was extremely concerned about what he was telling us as to the possibility that the infection has come to Scotland from Norway. Salmon in the sea, sea trout and herring certainly carry ISA in UK waters. Therefore, I ask the Minister what the Scottish scientists are doing. At Pitlochry and Aberdeen, we have extremely skilled scientists in the laboratories. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what recommendations they are making in order to halt the spread of ISA and indeed, it is hoped, to prevent it happening in the future other than by the drastic impact of culling.
  We all know what that can mean in terms of any form of livestock. One remembers the problems of foot and mouth and, of course, brucellosis in cattle. But then there was compensation. However, I share the view of
  1898
  my noble friend Lord Mackay that if this disease has been self-imported from Norway we must be extremely careful about offering compensation to fish farmers to cull, clean and disinfect cages.
  The Minister and his colleagues are keen to regenerate industry in Scotland. It is therefore important that we get this right in relation to fish farms which provide a high percentage of employment in areas where it is difficult to find alternative jobs. It is becoming even more serious in relation to what is happening on the hill farms today. As I mentioned in the Question I raised in the Chamber this afternoon, hill farming is facing a serious crisis at the present time.
  It is unlikely that those who lose their jobs or are made redundant on fish farms in the western half of Scotland will obtain jobs in farming at the present time. They will be a serious drain on the local economy if they are out of work. The Minister will appreciate the importance of getting this right and preventing the drain on employment from fish farms should this disease spread rapidly and the 300 plus fish farms which are unaffected at the moment come within the ambit of suspicion.
  It is important also that this House sends a message to the public—the noble Lord, Lord Mason, was not too certain about this, but from my inquiries over the past day or two I am confident—that this disease cannot affect human beings. The virus can only survive at temperatures far below that of the human body. It is really therefore no threat to the public and we should be confident to continue to purchase and eat both smoked and fresh salmon whether it comes from fish farms or from the wild.
  I have watched my near neighbours in Annan in the development of Pinneys. They are the largest smokers of salmon in Scotland. They have a big industry and only a few months ago opened a new facility in Annan where they employ several hundred people. They in turn will become concerned about their future when they see in the press scandalous headlines indicating that ISA is on a par with BSE and that their jobs will be at risk because of the possibility in the future of a ban on selling smoked salmon to the public. That is not true. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the only problem will arise from the supply of salmon rather than whether or not it is fit to eat.
  I hope therefore that producers of high quality smoked salmon—we have them in numbers in Scotland—are able to continue to produce their high quality goods and find a market for them. I hope that they are not hindered by bad publicity which, quite frankly, is inaccurate and causes unnecessary anxiety. As the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said, it involves 5,000 or 6,000 people in the industry throughout Scotland.
  It is important that tonight we build up consumer confidence in the consumption of salmon, whether smoked or fresh, and that we work hard to find a cure. I hope that the Minister will be able to point us in the right direction in that regard tonight. There is no cause for alarm and I am highly critical of those in the media who caused a great deal of disquiet by falsely indicating that it is something that can affect humans when it certainly cannot.

  1899
  I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish for initiating this short debate. It gives us the opportunity to hear the views of the Scottish Office, and perhaps a chance to indicate that there is no danger to human life. However, there is an extremely serious danger in the spread of this disease to salmon farms in Scotland. The sooner we can find a cure or a prevention, certainly of bringing live salmon from elsewhere in the world, the better.
  7.33 p.m.
  Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to declare an interest inasmuch as I am the owner of land on which a salmon farm works. It is in fact owned by Norsk Hydro. It is a hatchery and has not yet been affected by the disease.
  I should like to point out that salmon farming in this country is now a major industry producing many hundreds of tonnes of salmon a year. It is a large employer in depressed areas—mostly the west of Scotland. It has also changed the eating habits of this country to a large extent in that salmon has now dramatically gone down in price. In fact, at Leadenhall Market today one can buy a marvellous side of smoked salmon for just £10, whereas 20 or 30 years ago it would have been considerably more.
  All I ask is that the Government take this threat extremely seriously and, if necessary, impose quarantine. But they should not treat it like the BSE scare which, as my noble friend Lord Monro said, caused such an over-reaction. As has been stated by other noble Lords, this disease constitutes no danger to human health. Nevertheless, it should be taken extremely seriously.
  7.36 p.m.
  Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I first declare my interest—though it is well known to your Lordships—as chairman of Thurso Fisheries Limited and therefore beneficial owner of Thurso River. We do not have any fish farms near us and therefore I have no worries on that score other than some of those expressed this evening. I also have no axe to grind in that regard.
  I have one other interest to declare in that it is my mother-in-law's 70th birthday tonight and I am supposed to be there. I shall therefore be remarkably brief. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for the full and excellent way in which he put his Question to the Government. He and I probably share similar sources of information; there is little that I saw in my brief that he did not cover in his and I shall not repeat it.
  It is pleasant to be in the Chamber with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asking the Question and the Minister responding on a subject in which there is a common bond of concern and to be largely in agreement. We are normally dealing with the Scotland Bill and are not nearly so consensual.
  Before total harmony breaks out between us, perhaps I may pick up on one matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I thought this evening in
  1900
  your Lordships' House I would get away with not talking about netting. However, the noble Lord managed to mention it: he said that salmon farming has been beneficial in helping to reduce the price and consequently reduce poaching and netting action.
  There is considerable evidence that with netting stations being removed from the north coast poaching has actually increased. I ask only that those involved in netting be given the same rights and treatment as the rest of us in all the aspects of salmon fishing. Also, in relation to consumption, I believe the actual amount of salmon consumed compared with the old days has greatly increased. That is therefore a dangerous argument to follow.
  However, from now on let a reasonable amount of harmony break out between us. I thank the noble Lord for raising this matter and doing it so well. I just want to cherry pick one or two of the points he raised. First, he spoke of compensation. I know that a number of people feel strongly that it would be wrong, if it is proved that the disease is the result of illegal importation of fish, for those who committed that act to be compensated for their folly by the taxpayer.
  One should also have regard to the many people who have operated within the industry perfectly legally and legitimately and who now stand to suffer from the illegal activities. In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in his call for sympathy for the shellfish growers, I would also say that those salmon growers who have been involved and who have not been part of any illegal or incompetent action should not also be penalised. Perhaps the way to deal with that is to make sure that jobs are kept until such time as we have the facts before us. If and when we have the facts we discover that the problem has been caused by illegal acts or incompetence, then we can go after the perpetrators rather than punishing everybody.
  As to the question of regulation, with this grave problem facing us—and it is an extremely grave problem—there is a natural tendency to want the highest possible order of regulation. But I am not wholly convinced. When I was speaking in a debate that the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, introduced, I had question marks over the way he wished to see the industry regulated. I am not wholly convinced that strong, heavy-handed regulation is the right way to go. But it is absolutely necessary that regulation should be effective, however it is put forward. I am sympathetic to introducing more regulation—clearly we have a big problem—but I would need some convincing.
  As one noble Lord said, this is rather like foot and mouth. As with foot and mouth, there are ways of dealing with diseases. The key is to ensure that powers exist at the Scottish Office—I presume that this will be a devolved matter in the Scottish parliament—to enable it to take such action as necessary at government level. That does not mean that we have to create a regulatory body to do it. There is a balance to be struck between what we need to achieve the objective and the correct amount of regulation.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I too heard that there is an attempt to blame this disease on our indigenous Scottish salmon. That is not only a

  1901
  dreadful slur but is quite incorrect. When infectious pancreatic necrosis—that horrible disease—struck it was eventually moved from being a class 1 disease, once it had infected wild salmon, and it became a big problem in rivers for many years. I would be most disappointed if the same were to happen in regard to infectious salmon anaemia.
  The control of well boats is crucial. I said at the beginning of my speech that Thurso is probably safe because it is an area with no salmon farms. But, as I said that I wondered what would happen if a well boat put into Scrabster harbour and discharged over the side. There could well be a problem. That is a serious point and one which we should take on board.
  A number of noble Lords mentioned the disposal of the carcasses of diseased fish. I have heard reports of them being disposed of at sea. That is clearly wrong. I hope that those reports are incorrect and that the Minister can reassure me about that. It would be worrying if carcasses were being disposed of at sea.
  There is also a report—this is second-hand information so I am not sure of its accuracy—of carcasses being transported across Scotland. Clearly dangers exist.
  Turning to the dreaded parasite gyrodactylus salaris, there are two dangers. One is the unwitting danger of importation by anglers because the parasite can live on in damp equipment and therefore be imported into the country. There is an excellent leaflet on that and I am concerned with a number of organisations that have been making sure that everybody involved is aware of the danger. On the Thurso, my river superintendent now speaks to every angler to ask whether they have been abroad and, if so, offers to disinfect their kit for them free of charge. I do not know whether other proprietors do things like that, but I suggest that it is worth while.
  The second danger is illegal importation—if indeed there has been illegal importation. If that is happening, it is a huge danger. By its very nature it will be going on in a clandestine way and therefore be impossible to regulate and deal with. I hope that the Minister can assure us on that point. It would be an unmitigated disaster in the salmon industry if gyrodactylus salaris came anywhere near us.
  Let me now go slightly off the subject and speak to one small point. I welcome the planning guidelines that have been sent out for consultation by the Scottish Office. I think it is a two-month consultation at the moment. As I read it, there is a presumption against farms on the east coast, there are very sensitive areas on the west coast and sensitive areas. We are moving in the right direction to get the proper balance between the important commercial imperative of preserving jobs on the west coast and not spreading the dangers that we now know about across to other areas of Scotland.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, mentioned cross-contamination and the possibility of there being a possible salmon BSE. The noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, assured us that it could not become a human variant BSE, as it were. After the BSE experience I would not like to be the Minister who made that assertion from the Front Bench. One thing that BSE has
  1902
  taught us is that we need to be extremely careful whenever we have imported diseases from one area to another, as we witnessed with Baltic salmon being immune to gyrodactylus salaris and the devastation in Norway. What would happen if that came here? The best scientific advice is that it absolutely cannot come to humans; but never is a long time in cross-contamination.
  I await the response of the Minister. I urge above all that we adopt a highly precautionary approach to try to stop this as nearly as possible dead in its tracks.
  7.46 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I also thank all Members of your Lordships' House who have participated in this short debate for the positive and constructive way in which they have approached the issue. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, indicated, there is a common objective and shared purpose to ensure that we deal with the problem of infectious salmon anaemia and do whatever we can to prevent gyrodactylus salaris from ever reaching our rivers.
  Let me talk first about infectious salmon anaemia, which we all recognise is an extremely serious disease of salmon in sea water. It is a disease which is transmitted by contact between fish through blood, urine, faeces and body fluids, though there is some evidence to suggest that it might also be carried by other salmonids, including sea trout. It is caused by a virus. It has characteristic visual symptoms, which include darkening of the liver, severe anaemia and visceral haemorrhaging which assist in its diagnosis.
  I recognise and share the dismay which has been expressed about the advent of ISA in Scotland. This is not just a major disappointment; it also raises anxieties that another disease, gyrodactylus salaris, might also appear one day. I hope, however, that what I have to say will provide some reassurance on that issue.
  ISA was first identified in Norway in 1984. In 1996 it was found in Canada. Prior to the present outbreak there had been no reports of the disease in European Community waters.
  There is a clear legal framework for dealing with any ISA outbreak. Let me briefly describe the measures which the Government are obliged to take. Any suspicion of the disease must immediately be notified to the authorities. Once such a report is received, restrictive measures must be put in hand to reduce the risk of the outbreak spreading—by controls on the movement of fish and equipment onto and off the suspected farm and other farms in the same catchment area. Subsequent confirmation of the disease requires the removal of all fish from the farm and full disinfection. Fish not showing clinical signs of the disease may be marketed. All other fish, eggs and gametes must be destroyed in an approved manner. There must then be a fallowing period before the farm can be restocked. The clearing of an infected farm and the disposal of infected fish is subject to inspection by our fish health inspectorate.

  1903
  The first outbreak of ISA in Scotland was confirmed at a site in Loch Nevis in May. Since then the disease has been confirmed at a further nine sites, the last on 18th September. Eleven other sites are suspected but this needs to be seen in the context of some 340 salmon farms which comprise the Scottish industry. The common denominator between these sites appears to be site-to-site contact of personnel and equipment, including well-boats, which are used for the movement of fish. Due to the movement restrictions, which are also imposed for 40 kilometres around suspected or confirmed sites, almost 180 other fish farms are under regular surveillance and need the department's approval to move their fish. That is the precautionary framework and the legal framework in which the policy operates.
  Approximately 3,000 tonnes of fish have had to be slaughtered on the confirmed 10 sites. About one-third have been destroyed and safely disposed of. The other two-thirds have displayed no clinical signs of the disease and, as permitted by European fish health legislation, they have been marketed. Again, to put this into perspective, the total of 3,000 tonnes is equivalent in weight terms to about 3 per cent. of this year's expected production.
  I hope it will be clear from what I have said that the response to the ICA outbreak by the Scottish Office has been immediate and rigorous. I take note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, when he referred to the actions of the Scottish Office, and thank him for it. As the Minister, I have been greatly impressed by the work and effort put in by the various civil servants. It has been exemplary.
  We have reinforced our fish health inspectorate to undertake the extra work required. Our aim—indeed our obligation under Community law—is to eradicate the disease and the measures put in place are designed to that end. The objective is the eradication of the disease. We remain committed to that policy, but we are keeping that objective under review in the light of our growing knowledge and experience of this disease. It is fairly well known that the disease expresses itself at times of stress; in particular, temperature changes. The next few months will be critical in terms of our being able to reach a view on whether the disease has spread on the basis of site-to-site contact or whether there is something more general and, unfortunately perhaps, more endemic in its presence.
  Ever since the first outbreak was confirmed in May we have kept in close contact with the European Commission and the Community Fish Health Laboratory in Denmark, which have expressed themselves content with our actions to date. We are liaising with the Norwegian authorities which, as has been pointed out, have longer experience of the disease. We have also worked closely with the industry itself. I have had a whole series of meetings with representatives of the industry—from the major companies to the small producers—and I know that my officials are in virtual day-to-day contact with all aspects of the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, referred to a failure to respond. I shall make sure that that is taken up and will get back to the noble Lord as quickly
  1904
  as possible. But I emphasise that not only the Scottish Office but the industry as a whole see this as a major challenge. We need to have a robust and effective response to that challenge. I am quite sure that the industry recognises the serious threat posed by ISA and I am satisfied that it is co-operating with the various restrictions and controls that are in place.
  I am conscious that three main questions arise in relation to this outbreak. How did the disease arrive? What are the risks of it spreading? And what are the implications for human health? Some of those questions have almost been answered by those who have participated in the debate. However, as the Minister, I think I had better answer them as well.
  On the first point—how did the disease arrive—we are required under Community legislation to seek to establish the cause. Considerable effort is being put into this but I have to say that, as yet, it has not been possible to reach any firm conclusions. I say purely as a theoretical point that it is possible that the virus arrived through wild fish. That is a theoretical possibility—I make no more of it than that—and I do have to say that no imports of live salmon or eggs from Norway are permitted. We have no evidence that any illegal import of salmon has occurred. Our work is still continuing. We wish very much to be able to tie down the cause of the disease's arrival in this country.
  Concern has been expressed about possible transmission to and by wild stocks. ISA is a disease specific to salmon and it follows that it could exist in wild stocks. I mentioned earlier that certain wild fish, such as sea trout, could be carriers of the virus. As part of the mandatory investigation into the cause of the outbreak, samples of salmon, sea trout and whitefish have been tested from the areas around infected farms, with, I am happy to say, negative results. We will be continuing our surveillance of wild fish both in the waters around suspect and confirmed farms and beyond.
  For reasons which I well understand, noble Lords have raised the question of the possibility of risk to human health arising from this viral disease of salmon. I hope I may add to the reassurance already given. This very question was considered on 18th September by the Government's Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. The committee noted that there was little evidence of cold water pathogens, particularly viruses, causing disease in humans. Further, it noted that host range was narrow. Only Atlantic salmon are known to be susceptible to ISA, although the virus can survive and replicate in some species of trout. In addition—this is a fundamentally important point—the virus is unable to replicate at temperatures above 25 degrees centigrade. The committee concluded that there was currently no evidence of a risk to human health. Inquiries have also been made through our embassies in Ottawa and Oslo—because Norway and Canada both have experience of the disease—and I am happy to report that neither country has any evidence of the ISA virus causing illness in humans. There would appear to be a general consensus on this point both in terms of experience and of science.

  1905
  A number of other points relating to ISA were made during the debate and I will return to those a little later, point by point. However, before doing so I should like to say something about gyrodactylus salaris. This is a freshwater parasite of salmon, which appears to have originated in the Baltic. Baltic salmon seem to have developed an immunity to it but Atlantic salmon are vulnerable. From the Baltic it spread to Norway, where it spread rapidly and, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, indicated, it devastated salmon stocks in many of the Norwegian rivers.
  In response to the threat posed by gyrodactylus salaris, it was made a notifiable disease in the United Kingdom in 1988, and in 1996 the United Kingdom was able to persuade the European Commission to impose temporary safeguard measures prohibiting the import of all live salmonoids into Great Britain and Ireland. Earlier this year the United Kingdom put forward an alternative proposal for strengthening the national measures that member states can take under EU rules to prevent the introduction of diseases from which they are free in their territory. I am pleased to say that this proposal was adopted by the council this summer. It will enable us to adopt permanent measures replacing the existing temporary safeguards to guard against the introduction of gyrodactylus salaris into this country.
  There is a remote risk that gyrodactylus salaris might be introduced into this country by another route, for example, on anglers' clothing or equipment. This is a point which has been referred to by earlier speakers. The parasite can survive for up to eight days in damp conditions. To guard against this possibility, both the Scottish Office and MAFF have issued advice to angling and other organisations about this risk, emphasising the need to disinfect or thoroughly dry all equipment after returning from an angling trip abroad.
  I should like now to refer to some of the specific points which were made earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred to the possibility of tightening up controls generally—a point which was also made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I welcome any ideas for tightening up controls. We have set up a working group with the Scottish Office and salmon farmers to consider all such ideas, and I will certainly want to consider any specific proposals put forward this evening.
  Controls of the movements of well-boats are being actively reviewed by the working group. We recognise that this is an area where we very much want to focus our concerns. Another point was made as to how far we were satisfied about the disposal of blood and carcasses and whether this was being done safely. The situation is that all disposals of infected material are monitored by the Fish Health Inspectorate, local authorities and others. At the moment we are satisfied that the industry is co-operating fully. Indeed, both the disposal and the general husbandry policies in the industry are being addressed by the industry. They recognise that in some cases improvements have to be made.
  1906
  I very much accept the point about shellfish farmers. I cannot promise compensation at all: it has not been the case in the past to compensate shellfish farmers when they have been subject to movement restrictions. However, I have been able to lift all movement restrictions in relation to shell-fish farmers at the moment. I hope they will now be able to resume their activity relatively untroubled.
  We have also, in response to the threat, increased the number of our field inspectors. A total of 14 extra staff have been taken on to ensure that we are able to maintain the necessary inspectorate effort. I am not saying that the inspectors are there all the time, but there is a very good and thorough coverage by inspectors. That is absolutely right and proper, and I very much want to pay tribute to the hardworking staff who are working long hours to maintain proper supervision.
  Throughout the debate there has been the odd reference to Norway as the possible origin of the present infection. I just want to inject a word of caution in relation to the source of this outbreak. I have to take a balanced view of this matter and my scientific advisers do not rule out the possibility that this virus has reached Scotland through wild stocks. I say that only because that is what the scientists tell me. It is indeed the case that the disease was first identified at a Norsk-Hydro farm and is generally confined to Norsk-Hydro farms. Beyond that, however, we can link all infected sites to the movement of fish and personnel or equipment from that site—movement, I should say, that took place before our movement controls took effect. So I think the way in which it has spread so far we have been able to identify. It is by site-to-site contact, and we have then imposed the restriction orders which should contain the problem, I hope. As I mentioned earlier, we are moving to a period in the year when we will soon know whether the virus and the disease have been contained or whether we are facing a much more difficult problem.
  Very briefly, regarding gyrodactylus salaris, there is a specific point about posters. It has been mentioned that leaflets are already available. I can confirm that we are in the process of arranging for such posters to be placed in ports of entry, and the posters have actually been printed. I think, speaking to fishermen, that there is a very high level of recognition among that community of the danger posed by gyrodactylus salaris and I feel that people are behaving responsibly. I applaud that.
  I hope I have answered all the points raised in the debate. I shall want to read what has been said by noble Lords, and if I have missed anything I will endeavour to reply in writing. I stress that the Government will continue to take the current outbreak of ISA extremely seriously. The policy that we are committed to is one of eradication. We want to overcome this disease, and that drives everything we have done. Similarly, we remain resolved to keep gyrodactylus salaris out of this country.
  House adjourned at nine minutes past eight o'clock.

  HIV: Incidence in East Africa
  HIV: Incidence in East Africa
  HIV in Uganda: UK Aid
  HIV in Uganda: UK Aid
  Breast Cancer Radiotherapy: Legal Aid Board Action
  Breast Cancer Radiotherapy: Legal Aid Board Action
  Non-cash Vouchers: National Insurance Liability
  Non-cash Vouchers: National Insurance Liability
  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Training and Enterprise Councils
  National Learning Targets
  National Learning Targets
  AIDS: Support Grant
  AIDS: Support Grant
  MMR Vaccine
  MMR Vaccine
  National Blood Authority
  National Blood Authority
  Autism: Incidence
  Autism: Incidence
  Ministerial Committee on Economic Affairs
  Ministerial Committee on Economic Affairs
  Sustainable Development: UK Round Table Reports
  Sustainable Development: UK Round Table Reports
  Highways Agency
  Highways Agency
  EU Candidate Countries: Twinning Programme
  EU Candidate Countries: Twinning Programme
  Strategic Export Controls: Torture Equipment
  Strategic Export Controls: Torture Equipment
  Iraq: Kuwaiti Detainees
  Iraq: Kuwaiti Detainees
  Private Military Companies
  Private Military Companies
  Turkey: Internal Warfare
  Turkey: Internal Warfare
  UN Charter and Use of Force
  UN Charter and Use of Force
  Argentina: Arms Embargo
  Argentina: Arms Embargo