Sitting of 28 October 1998

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

  Cyprus
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  9.33 am
  Mr. David Amess: I particularly welcome your presence, Madam Speaker, at the beginning of our proceedings, as I realise that we are debating a subject that is of some interest to you. Indeed, it is a subject in which you have considerable expertise.
  I may be wrong, but I think that this occasion may mark the Minister's debut at the Dispatch Box in a debate on Cyprus.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin)indicated assent.
  Mr. Amess: I welcome her to the debate.
  I should perhaps say that I am not Greek or Turkish, but a British Member of Parliament who was born in London. Some of my constituents would probably say, "David, there is enough to worry about in Southend without expending your efforts in a debate on the future of the tiny island of Cyprus." I suppose that such a sentiment sums up how hon. Members are thought of today—largely as an alternative councillor and glorified social worker, overlooking our national and international roles.
  I strongly believe that the future of Cyprus is and should be of great concern to all hon. Members, particularly because of the island's strategic defence importance. The presence in the Chamber of so many hon. Members demonstrates that many others share my views on the importance of Cyprus's future.
  I made my most recent visit to Cyprus, at the end of August, as a guest of the Cypriot Brotherhood. I went as part of an all-party group, which included my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright)—who had hoped to attend this debate but, unfortunately, is otherwise engaged. We met in Cyprus, on an all-party basis, many different people, and were very pleased to meet President Clerides.
  After that visit, I felt great frustration at the lack of progress in achieving a fair and peaceful resolution of the situation in Cyprus. Although the Minister may say that it is unfair to criticise that lack of progress, my criticism is not directed at her or the Government. I applied for this Adjournment debate, for which I am grateful, because of that frustration.
  252
  In my time as an hon. Member, there have been many debates on the future of Cyprus. Although I certainly do not pretend that I am an expert on the subject, I am still entitled to my views on it. The chances are that no original views will be expressed in this debate, but—who knows—today may be an historic occasion. Perhaps, in future years, we will be able to claim that today's debate made an important contribution in finding a resolution to the problem.
  It may surprise the House to learn that, in my constituency of Southend, West, I have very few Greek Cypriot constituents. The overwhelming number of my Cypriot constituents are Turkish. I believe that I have very good relations with those Turkish Cypriots, with whom I have interesting exchanges on matters concerning Cyprus. Nevertheless, I should make it clear now that my own sympathies lie with the arguments that have been enunciated by those on the Greek side of the issue.
  Cyprus, as we all know, is undoubtedly a very beautiful island, but its landscape has been entirely marred by the green line. Hon. Members may have been sent a photographic record of the line by Doris Partasides. For those who like looking at pictures and are not so interested in text, that record graphically demonstrates the tragedy that is Cyprus. I thought of Miss Havisham and her frustrated wedding feast when I looked at the photographs, which show the eeriness and tragedy of the green line—and which is madness. Surely it cannot be in the interests of the Cypriot people to have a divided island.
  We ignore history at our peril. The history of the occupation of Cyprus over the centuries is used by the Greek and Turkish Governments partly to justify their positions. I know that there are hon. Members here this morning who are drawn to both sides of the argument. As we know, Cyprus finally achieved independence in 1960, but that independence was short lived. In the summer of 1974, Turkey, following a military coup against President Makarios, invaded the island. That is a fact, and cannot be disputed.
  Mr. Jamie Cann: I do not like the word "invaded". Turkey was one of the guarantor powers of the treaty of independence. Under that treaty, Turkey intervened in a military coup that was taking place in Cyprus and during which Turkish citizens were being massacred.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Why are the Turkish troops still there?
  Mr. Amess: There we are—
  Mr. Cann: Madam Speaker, may I respond to the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)?
  Madam Speaker: I did not hear it. Is the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) giving way?
  Mr. Amess: I should like to reply to the first intervention. There we are—we have heard the Turkish view of events. I said that we ignore history at our peril, and we seem to have two versions of history. I do not want to waste hon. Members' time by engaging in

  253
  semantics, as many want to speak. The hon. Gentleman has expressed his point of view; we shall have to agree to differ.
  Mr. Andrew Love: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was also part of the terms of the treaty that any troops who went to the island should leave as soon as possible and return the status quo ante?
  Mr. Amess: Yes, I am delighted to be able to agree whole-heartedly with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of history, with which I know another hon. Member disagrees.
  What I was about to say—it might please the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) a little—is that we must not forget that the military coup was carried out by the Greek junta. The Turkish Government at the time said that their action was aimed at re-establishing the status quo created by the Cyprus treaty of independence. Constitutional order was indeed restored within a week, but the invading forces—I know that the hon. Member for Ipswich does not like that description—extended their operations and occupied 37 per cent. of the republic's territory. Tragically, as a result of that, 5,000 Greek Cypriots lost their lives.
  Mr. Eddie O'Hara: Whether we call it invasion or intervention, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the continued occupation of 37 per cent. of northern Cyprus since 1974 by the Turkish army is in contravention of Turkey's powers under the treaty of guarantee?
  Mr. Amess: Again, I am pleased to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman whom I was privileged to accompany on a visit last year. He has great expertise in these matters as he was stationed in Cyprus for some time. I whole-heartedly agree with his interpretation of the facts.
  Five thousand Greek Cypriots lost their lives, nearly 200,000 became refugees and 1,619 are still unaccounted for. Greek Cypriots believe strongly that Turkey began a programme of demographic change in the occupied zone. Settlers from Turkey were allowed to establish themselves on the island as full citizens with the right to vote. In 1983, Mr. Denktas declared a separate state. The international community—again, this is a matter of fact—unanimously rejected that action. Today, the occupied territory is recognised by Turkey alone.
  As evidence of how the Greek Cypriots feel, I want to quote a wide-ranging speech made by the re-elected President Clerides to the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 September. In it, he set out his proposals for the future of Cyprus. It shows clearly the Greek Cypriots' claim that their efforts to achieve a settlement have been frustrated, although I know that some hon. Members will disagree. President Clerides said:
  "As regards Security Council and General Assembly Resolutions calling for the speedy withdrawal of all foreign armed forces and personnel from the Republic of Cyprus, not only the Turkish Armed Forces and personnel have not been withdrawn but they have been increased and upgraded to such an extent that the previous
  254
  Secretary-General Mr. Boutros Ghali described in his report to the Security Council the occupied part of Cyprus as the most militarized area in the world."
  Mr. Cann:: Rubbish.
  Mr. Amess: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Rubbish", but I was quoting the President of Cyprus. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to disagree.
  President Clerides continued:
  "UN resolutions for the return of the refugees to their homes under conditions of safety were not implemented not only because Turkish Forces prevented the refugees to return, but also because Turkey, violating other provisions of UN resolutions calling on all parties concerned to avoid any action to change the demographic composition of the population of Cyprus, imported to Cyprus thousands of illegal settlers from Turkey, usurped the properties of the refugees and installed settlers into them."
  He continued:
  "The recent demand of the Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Denktash in the presence of the Turkish Foreign Minister for a confederation solution violates all UN resolutions, which call for a bizonal, bicommunal federation with a single sovereignty, international personality and citizenship, and is aimed at derailing the negotiating process from the base of the UN resolutions on Cyprus, but also at extinguishing the independence of the Republic of Cyprus and creating under the guise of a Turkish Cypriot Republic a Turkish colony in Cyprus or to say the least a Turkish protectorate."
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most significant factors in what has happened has been the refusal of Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots to pay any heed to repeated United Nations resolutions? The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann). who intervened on my hon. Friend and continues to laugh at his speech, might not like it, but the fact remains that it is Turkey and Turkish Cypriots who have continued to flout the will of the United Nations.
  Mr. Amess: I agree with my hon. Friend. That was certainly the evidence that we found on our recent visit.
  President Clerides went on to say:
  "The non-implementation of United Nation Resolutions on Cyprus tarnishes the image of the United Nations and its main bodies. The former Secretary-General Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali has in one of his reports to the Security Council identified that a cause for the absence of progress in Cyprus is the lack of political will on the part of the Turkish side. With that report the diagnosis of the causes of the failure to make progress towards a solution is completed. Is it too much for the people of Cyprus to ask what will the next step be? Will the United Nations finally take the necessary action to apply the required remedy in order to put an end to the tragedy that has befallen our small state and which continues for 24 years?"
  That is President Clerides's interpretation of the current position, but hon. Members are entitled to agree or not. However, it would be foolish of the House not to unite in agreement with President Clerides, who says of his vision for Cyprus:
  "I want all Cypriots to have security in their homes and their communities. I want all Cypriots to pursue their livelihoods".
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I believe that we, in the United Kingdom, wish the Turkish Cypriots in northern Cyprus and the Greeks to enjoy security and safety. However, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has made no reference to the reason why the Turkish Cypriots lack that comfort and security—the betrayal by successive

  255
  British Governments in failing to play their part and guarantee the security to which the Turkish Cypriots were entitled, and which was denied them by an expansionist Greek regime.
  Mr. Amess: The hon. Gentleman, as an Ulster Unionist, knows all about political difficulties, and I do not dismiss his contribution this morning. He has placed on the record his version of events. Later I may—without necessarily criticising the Government—agree with part of what he says.
  Mr. Gale: Does my hon. Friend agree that a very significant number of Turkish Cypriots have found it necessary to leave the island of Cyprus and are now resident in Australia, New Zealand and, indeed, in London and other parts of the United Kingdom? They have done so as a direct result of the fact that they feel unsafe under what is termed their own regime in the northern part of Cyprus.
  Mr. Amess: I agree unequivocally. Last year, that fear was evident, especially when we visited Famagusta. He is entirely right that, as a result, many people have now chosen to live in Australia.
  Mr. Cann: Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise that the second largest population of Greek people in one town is in Melbourne in Australia?
  Mr. Amess: To allow everyone to speak, I shall—I hope without being discourteous to others—move on quickly and conclude my speech.
  I had hoped—obviously the hope was futile—that hon. Members might unite in agreement with President Clerides, who has said:
  "I want all Cypriots to have security in their homes and their communities. I want all Cypriots to pursue their livelihoods free of economic restrictions and the fear of instability. I want all Cypriot children to know their distinct culture and religious heritage and to be able to carry their identity and political rights into the future without fear of domination from any quarter."
  In 1991, the Cyprus Government applied for full membership of the European Union. I support their application, not least because I believe in the enlargement of the community. I understand that the negotiation process is taking place at the moment, as it is for the six other countries that have applied to join the Union. We know that Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leader have declared their opposition to the admission of Cyprus. After the long years of uncertainty for the Cypriot people, I believe that the British Government have a great responsibility to encourage Cyprus in its application, and I hope that we shall take positive steps to encourage an amicable and peaceful settlement to the Cypriot problem.
  Often people say to me, "There is no problem between the Cypriot people; the problem is between the Greek and the Turkish Governments." I do not know whether that is the case, but the Turkish Cypriot community in my constituency says that it has no argument with the Greek Cypriot community.
  Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Amess: For the last time.
  Mr. Love: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Cyprus's application for accession to the EU may act as a catalyst in bringing the two communities together and finding a resolution to the problem of the division of that island?
  Mr. Amess: I agree whole-heartedly. As a Conservative Member of Parliament, I might be
  256
  somewhat sceptical about some elements of the EU, but I entirely agree that membership can, in a very positive sense, bring about a lasting settlement.
  So often, personalities determine events. I was optimistic that the last Prime Minister but one of Turkey—who, tragically, died following a heart attack—might have been instrumental in bringing about a settlement. Today, we need strong personalities to achieve that. I hope that the Minister will address several issues. If she does not have time to respond this morning, perhaps she will write to me on the matter, but I should like to know in detail, eventually, precisely what Her Majesty's Government are trying to do in a practical sense to bring about a settlement.
  In my constituency, members of the Turkish Cypriot community are troubled by the present visa requirements. They say that there never used to be any difficulty. They find it insulting when mothers and fathers are now required to have visas. I do not know the truth of that; would the Minister kindly let me know?
  On another matter, which may not seem relevant to the future of Cyprus, I am deeply involved in supporting members of the Cypriot community who are concerned about the tragic consequences of thalassaemia, and I am working with them to raise money to combat it. I have first-hand knowledge of that tragic illness, which is a blood disorder that destroys the lives of young people mainly. I know that Her Majesty's Government's resources for the health service are greatly stretched at the moment, but I wonder whether the Minister could offer any words on what we are trying to do to combat that disease. Next year, I shall visit the northern and southern sides of Cyprus, and I shall present a cheque to the appropriate authorities to try to help fight it.
  Nothing could be more graphic than a visit to Famagusta to demonstrate the futility of the situation. Last year, I visited the island with the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and the hon. Member whose constituency I have forgotten.
  Mr. O'Hara: Knowsley, South.
  Mr. Amess: I am sorry; I meant the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). We spent time with the mayor, deputy mayor and other councillors. We learnt at first hand their experiences—the real fear that exists.
  I know that the Cypriots are looking to the United States of America to take a lead in this matter. In July 1996, Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, said:
  "a settlement to the Cyprus problem is long overdue … finding a just and lasting settlement that will end the longstanding division of Cyprus is one of my highest priorities".
  I believe that the expectations that arose from that statement have not been fulfilled. Sadly, the American Administration is somewhat flawed and distracted at the moment.
  All Cypriot people want a future for their country. Anyone visiting the island must surely conclude that the present situation is totally unsatisfactory. It is now up to all political leaders who are of good will, especially in this country, to unite in saying that the situation has persisted for far too long. In the name of decency,

  257
  we must ensure that the two communities can live, work and prosper together in a free, united and demilitarised Cyprus. That surely must be the future of Cyprus.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I am delighted to see that there is a great deal of interest in the debate, but we have little time for it. I appeal to hon. Members to be brisk and short, because I want to call as many as possible.
  9.59 am
  Mr. Tom Cox: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on initiating this debate and on his long and honourable contribution to Cyprus. I endorse his comments about my hon. Friend the Minister. He is right to say that this is her first appearance as Minister in a debate on Cyprus, but it is by no means the first time that she has taken part in such debates. Few Foreign Office Ministers have comparable knowledge of Cyprus. In opposition, she was deeply involved with the issue.
  I chair the all-party Cyprus group. We are committed to helping the people of Cyprus—Greek or Turkish—to develop their country and live in peace and security. The debate is about the future of Cyprus. The hon. Member for Southend, West has outlined some of the events since 1974. We all look for progress on a settlement to the long-running tragedy, but we have often seen our hopes fall away. The tragedy of Cyprus is that its potential has never been developed. The island is popular with tourists from all over the world, creating vast income and employment. The island also has agricultural potential, bringing further income and employment. The skills of the Cypriot people, their education ability, their employment skills and the fact that there is an established democracy—that is Cyprus 1998, on which the future can be built.
  Many of us have campaigned on issues that we regarded as vital to Cyprus over the years. Sadly, we have not made the progress that we all wanted. The hon. Member for Southend, West referred to Famagusta, which is one of the most beautiful towns on the island, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) can testify. It is now in the occupied area. It is a ghost town where no one lives. We have long hoped that Famagusta would be returned to the Republic of Cyprus. Promises were made that it would be returned, but they have been reneged on.
  Mr. Cann: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cox: I am not giving way.
  The people of Cyprus will never give up hope that their town will be returned. That would have been the real test for the future of Cyprus. The lack of progress on the return of Famagusta is disappointing, but there is a wonderful opportunity for the future of Cyprus—membership of the European Union. Its application is under active consideration. I am pleased that the Government and many other member states fully support that application. President Clerides deserves great credit for his repeated clear and honourable statements that Cyprus' application for membership is for the whole
  258
  island, for the benefit of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and that membership of the European Union will benefit all Cypriots. He has repeatedly invited Mr. Denktas and the Turkish Cypriots to join him in the negotiating team on EU membership.
  Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cox: I cannot give way because of the time.
  Sadly, Mr. Denktas has not co-operated with President Clerides's generous and honourable offers. Instead, further demands and criticisms have been made about the application. I have the greatest respect and regard for my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that the Government will tell Mr. Denktas clearly that we shall not tolerate his attitude. We must tell him and his friends in Ankara that we fully support Cyprus's application for membership of the European Union. There is no reason why the other 14 members of the European Union should not give equal support.
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly told Turkey in recent months that it has a future in Europe and will one day be able to seek membership of the European Union. I have no objections to that, although, like other hon. Members, I have some reservations about Turkey and many of its actions, particularly within its own borders. The Government should tell Turkey that if it seeks a role in the Europe that is developing, we have a right to tell it to use its influence and friendship with those who can help to ensure that President Clerides's application is fully supported.
  I shall close now, because many hon. Members want to speak. I warmly support the comments of the hon. Member for Southend, West in the debate. We know that Cyprus wants to develop its future for all the people of the island—Greek and Turkish. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say clearly that we support the application and President Clerides's generous and honourable offer to Mr. Denktas, because that is a real opportunity, which hon. Members on both sides fully support. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to give full support to this opportunity for the future of Cyprus so that that beautiful island and its people, with their enormous skills, can develop the opportunity that membership of the European Union will give them.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. May I inform the House that this is a very short debate, in which many hon. Members wish to take part? Short speeches would therefore be appreciated.
  10.9 am
  Mr. Roger Gale: I am very grateful to be called, and I shall be extremely brief. I shall make two points. Before I do, I should declare a recorded interest as a visitor to Cyprus as the guest of the Morphou municipality and the Greek Cypriot Brotherhood. Very recently, in addition to those visits, I was able, through the good offices of the British high commission, to visit, in the company of hon. Members from both sides of the House, the northern, occupied part of Cyprus—affording

  259
  no recognition whatever to the illegal regime—and meet a representative of the leader of the Turkish community and leaders of other Turkish Cypriot parties in that part of the island. It is abundantly plain that there is a burning desire among many Turkish Cypriots to become involved in talks on accession to the European Union and to bring about the unification agreement that will benefit all Cypriots, to which the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred.
  I hope very much that when the Minister responds to the debate, she will be able to clarify the British Government's position. My first point is that it is absolutely vital that the House sends a very clear message to the Turkish Government that they will be able to exercise no power of veto over Cypriot accession to the EU and that that accession will proceed on track with or without a settlement of the Cyprus problem. Once the Turkish Government clearly understand that, the block to Turkish Cypriot participation in accession talks will be lifted. At that point, the very generous and sincere desire of the president of the republic, President Clerides, for an all-Cyprus negotiating team will become a reality. That will be in the interests of all Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities living in the United Kingdom and on the island of Cyprus.
  Secondly, I believe that I am right in saying that, yesterday, the time for a settlement by Turkey in the Loizidou case expired. As the Minister knows, Mrs. Loizidou took the Turkish Government to the European Court, which found in her favour and awarded damages. Turkey was given a period in which to honour the court's findings and to make payment. The Cyprus high commissioner informed me this morning that, as of last night, that payment had not been made. The United Kingdom is a member of the Council of Europe and a supporter of the European Court of Human Rights. It is also a guarantor power. We have an absolute duty to take action and seek enforcement of that European Court judgment. I would be very grateful if the Minister gave some indication of the Government's attitude and the action that we as a country propose to take.
  10.12 am
  Mr. Jamie Cann: We should at least try to get our facts right about this issue. Britain took over the governance of Cyprus in—I think—1878; it was certainly in the 1800s. At that time, Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots were intermingled in villages across the island. At the back end of the 1950s, a Greek Cypriot movement in Cyprus—EOKA—called for the island to become a sovereign part of Greece. At that time, Greek Cypriots were the ones shooting British soldiers, and Turkish Cypriots the ones who sheltered, succoured and protected them. We seem to get that wrong nowadays. Does nobody read history any more?
  When we left the island in the early 1960s, we left a treaty by which we, Greece and Turkey guaranteed we would abide. That treaty said that the president would always be a Greek Cypriot, because there is a majority on the island, that the vice-president would always be a Turkish Cypriot, and that the system would be bicameral. Within two years, that was broken. The Turks were dispossessed and herded into ghettos. I have seen the graves in some of those ghettos. There are no men in them because, as was the case with the Serbians after them, the men were moved on. God knows where they are. I saw
  260
  only graves of Turkish Cypriot babies, women and old men. Nobody can tell me that warm words from President Clerides will alter any of that history.
  When a fascist Greek junta, which some of our people do not seem to mind too much, took over the island in 1974, Süleyman Demirel, the president of Turkey, pleaded with my Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, and my Foreign Secretary, Jim Callaghan, "For goodness sake, do something about this. Our people have been herded into ghettos and massacred. The treaty of guarantee says that powers should operate to stop this." Did we do anything? No, we did nothing; so Turkey did, and I congratulate it on that.
  The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who appears to be falling asleep, asked earlier why British troops are still in Cyprus. That comes down to a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred. The treaty of guarantee said that guarantor powers would move in to stay and move out only when it was possible. It is not possible to move out.
  Mr. Steve McCabe: I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend's comments. I confess that I, too, have recently visited Cyprus. My trip was sponsored by Friends of Cyprus. I am curious about my hon. Friend's reaction to the behaviour of Mr. Denktas, the Turkish authorities and the military, especially given that there is now a minority of Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus, since they have been replaced by Turkish troops and Anatolians who were brought in by Mr. Denktas. Is not that worse than the events that my hon. Friend is discussing?
  Mr. Cann: It is certainly not worse. Incidentally, I ought to mention—I apologise for not doing so before—that I am a friend of Turkish north Cyprus. I have also been to the south of the island—but that is another matter. What my hon. Friend has said is not correct. The vast majority of people who live in the Turkish republic of north Cyprus are Cypriots. It is a secular democratic republic on a western model. Hon. Members shake their heads. Perhaps they have not been there; perhaps they ought to go there; perhaps I ought to invite them; perhaps I ought to try to get them there.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I have been there.
  Mr. Cann: My hon. Friend will know then that in shaking his head, he is very wrong.
  Mr. Hawkins: Despite what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, does he nevertheless concede that, about two and a half years ago, the late Lord Finsberg, as a member of the Council of Europe, was required to report on people in the illegally occupied area? His report confirmed that quite appalling human rights abuses had been imposed by Mr. Denktas on those in the territory of the illegal regime. How does the hon. Gentleman respond to that recent history?
  Mr. Cann: It must be very recent. It is also a total nonsense, as anyone who has visited the place knows.
  Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cann: No; please let me make a little progress.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions will most definitely mean that some hon. Members will be squeezed out of the debate.
  Mr. Cann: If I may, I shall continue making my argument.
  This country let down the Turkish Cypriots. The Turkish army moved in to protect the interests of the Turkish Cypriots, and since 1974, there has never been a solution that would have been acceptable to both Greek and Turkish Cypriots.
  Throughout those 24 or 25 years, all public opinion, and all the pressure in the press and from this place, has always been in support of the Greek Cypriots. Everything that the Turkish Cypriots do, and everything that the Turks as a nation do, is deprecated by the House. That is historically incorrect.
  Finally—
  Mr. Love: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cann: No, I shall not. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have his own say.
  Turkey is a country of 70 million people. It is a buttress of NATO in the whole of that area, and has been a strong and good friend of this country. Turkish Cypriots have been strong and good friends of our soldiers, too, when Greek Cypriots were shooting them in the back in the name of EOKA.
  As well as the justice of the case for the Turkish Cypriots, we should consider the interests of this country. If we try to bring a divided Cyprus into the European Union—
  Mr. Love: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cann: No, I will not.
  Would we be doing ourselves a favour if we brought in a divided Cyprus? No. Would we be doing the European Union or NATO a favour? No. The treaty that we left behind us laid down that Cyprus would be undivided, with bicameral government and a leadership split between the two communities. That has been abrogated for 25 years.
  Until we get back to that situation, we must ensure that Cyprus does not join the European Union. It is wrong to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting did and call Mr. Clerides "President Clerides", because under the treaty that we left behind, he is not the president. He is a minority leader, because the island is not united, and until it is, it should not be allowed to join the European Union.
  10.21 am
  Sir Sydney Chapman: We can all put our own interpretations on past events in the beautiful island of Cyprus, but I want to look to the future. I shall be brief. There are two developments relating to Cyprus
  262
  that I would like to see. First, I fervently hope to see the reunification of the island after 24 years in which 38 per cent. of it has been illegally occupied. Secondly, I want to see Cyprus's application to join the European Union succeed.
  I listened carefully to Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions yesterday, and lest there be any misunderstanding, I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the reunification of Cyprus is a separate issue from Cyprus's application to join the European Union, and that one is not dependent on the other. She did not say that, but columns 143 and 145 of yesterday's Hansard give rise to some ambiguity. I would like the simple assurance that the accession of Cyprus to the European Union will not be held up because, and if, the island remains divided.
  Cyprus is especially well qualified to join the EU. My research shows that it is one of the few countries in Europe—including most of the 11, from a total of 15, countries that are to launch the single currency on 1 January—that could meet the Maastricht convergence criteria straight away.
  I am somewhat confused and perplexed about the initiatives now taking place. There seem to be three special representatives trying to do their bit to solve the Cyprus problem. First, there is the omnipresent Richard Holbrooke, President Clinton's special adviser—but as soon as the dust settled on his visit to Cyprus, I discovered that he was in Kosovo. I wonder where he is now.
  Secondly, there is our own Sir David Hannay, a most respected diplomat whom I know and admire. I remember him in particular as the British permanent representative at the United Nations from 1990 to 1995. Third on the scene is Ann Hercus—to give her her proper title, the United Nations Secretary-General's alternate special representative.
  I wish them all well in their endeavours, but it is vital that there be a co-ordinated strategy to tackle the Cyprus problem. I believe that the United States must play a key role in helping the co-guarantors to find a solution, because the best prospect for the reunification of Cyprus is to deal with it as part of wider international concerns. That is a question of realpolitik.
  I share the view of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) that Turkey is a valued member of NATO. It is also a valued member of the Council of Europe, and I want to see it as a member of the European Union—provided, of course, that it can meet the economic and human rights criteria. If Turkey can join, that will help to establish peace and security in that part of Europe.
  Mr. Cann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I shall not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I would prefer hon. Members to make their points in their own speeches, rather than in the middle—or rather, at the end—of mine.
  For 24 years, the world has failed to deal with the division of Cyprus, and it behoves us to realise that we have a special responsibility not only as a co-guarantor, but because Cyprus is a Commonwealth country. What is needed is good will, as well as give and take on both sides of the green line which is the tragedy of Cyprus.
  10.26 am
  Mr. Eddie O'Hara: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on having called for a debate on the important subject of Cyprus. It is frustrating to have to be brief on such an important topic, but I shall do my utmost.
  Much has been said, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), about the legal, historical and constitutional situation, but let me explain that constitutionally, the treaty of guarantee still stands, and President Clerides is recognised as president of the Republic of Cyprus. Politically, the United Nations recognises the Republic of Cyprus and does not recognise the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus; only Turkey recognises that.
  As for the recent legal situation, the Loizidou case has been mentioned, and we must put on record the fact that an important by-product of the judgment at Strasbourg was that the judges held that Turkey was responsible for all that now happens in northern Cyprus because Turkey is in occupation. Turkey is in the dock, not the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus, which has no constitutional or legal status whatever.
  There has been much interpretation and reinterpretation of history, but let us accept that there were atrocities by extremists on both sides in the early days in the 1960s. It saddens me that all the literature that I receive from supporters of the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus always refers back to them, and never forwards. There have been no atrocities since then, except officially sponsored atrocities by the authorities in northern Cyprus, such as the fairly recent events involving Tassos Isaac and Solomos Solomou.
  In 1974 an illegal attempt was made by a Government outside Cyprus to overthrow the legally appointed Government of that island, including an attempt to assassinate the president. That attempt was overthrown within days; mercifully, it did not succeed. Under the treaty of guarantee, Turkey certainly had the right to intervene to restore the status quo, but it did not have the right to stay in occupation for 24 years and perpetrate the further waves of invasion that took in Famagusta.
  I declare an interest in that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), I am an honorary citizen of Famagusta. I am proud to say, "Epitimos Ammahostianos".
  There was some justification for Turkey's actions in 1974. One might question the brutality of the intervention, but it would not be profitable to do so. The sad thing is that, since 1974, there has been a major exercise in ethnic cleansing in northern Cyprus.
  Mr. Cann indicated dissent
  Mr. O'Hara: The Cuco report to the Council of Europe, some half a dozen years ago, expressed concern even then that the population of Epoiki—the immigrants into northern Cyprus—was on the point of exceeding that of the native Turkish Cypriots, who had emigrated to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and north London.
  264
  There have been assassinations of people in northern Cyprus who have dared to question the Government line.
  Mr. Cann: Nonsense.
  Mr. O'Hara: There have been assassinations—they are on record. There is a lot of evidence to show that typical Turkish Cypriots now feel like refugees in their own country.
  All of that is negative, and I would rather be positive. Every day that passes matters in the solution of the Cyprus problem. That is the difference between the Cyprus and Northern Ireland problems. Time was always on the side of a solution in Northern Ireland and, please God, we shall get that solution sooner rather than later. However, the concrete is setting and the barriers are rising every day between the two communities in Cyprus—most of whom lived harmoniously with each other for hundreds of years. The danger is that they will lose the habit of living together, and they will be forced to lose that habit if the situation continues as it is.
  It is negative to look back, and it is negative to talk about the confederation of two separate republics in Cyprus. There are positive opportunities, such as the accession of Cyprus to the EU. That offers benefits for all Cypriots, Greek and Turkish. It would be particularly beneficial to the Turkish Cypriots, because the situation over the past 24 years has done such grievous damage to the well-being of Turkish Cypriots. I remember going to the far north with my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting and seeing Turkish Cypriot villages where the people were living in absolute destitution. However, those people do not have the political means of expressing their opposition to what is going on.
  I call upon the Turkish Government to stop their bellicose rhetoric. If they want a solution, and if they want the S300s out of Cyprus, they must accept the offer of President Clerides to demilitarise the island. That can be done in phases, and in ways that would ensure the confidence of the Turkish Cypriot people in their security.
  Finally, I echo the words of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). Important as the solution of the Cyprus problem would be—everyone in the Chamber today is desperately keen to have a just and lasting solution to the Cyprus problem—there are bigger benefits to be gained if the problem were solved. Without a solution to the Cyprus problem, we will never resolve the differences between Greece and Turkey. Greece and Turkey are neighbours—they live better together in peaceful co-existence. If Greece and Turkey could live together in peaceful co-existence and co-operation, the benefits for the whole of the western world—and particularly for south-eastern Europe and the Mediterranean area—would be inestimable.
  10.33 am
  Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing the debate, but the great tragedy of our debates on Cyprus is that there is never enough time for the many hon. Members who have an interest in the subject to be able to express their views. That is a great shame, and I hope that we can have a longer debate at some stage.

  265
  This is the third such debate in which I have spoken. I am a little bemused to find myself the only Front-Bench survivor, in that the Government and the Conservative party both have new Front-Bench speakers.
  I make no apologies for repeating points that have been made on previous occasions, as I believe that they still hold good. It is essential for those Members of Parliament who speak with passion and knowledge on matters associated with Cyprus to recognise the fact that both communities have genuine fears and concerns about the other community and the other players in the region. Those have to be recognised and seen as part of the solution as it develops.
  I still see the future of Cyprus as being the same as the position that I anticipate the Minister will indicate when she replies on behalf of the Government—that bizonal, bicommunal, federal solution which has been the basis of so much work over the years and remains the basis of the United Nations resolutions on the subject.
  I also see the application of Cyprus to join the EU as an essential part of the process. It would be wholly beneficial for Cyprus to become a member of the EU, and it would be particularly advantageous to northern Cyprus, because—as the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) said—of the economic disadvantage that northern Cyprus has suffered during the years of partition. If there is any sector within the island that would benefit greatly from accession to the EU—which I hope will be at an earlier, rather than a later stage—it is the people in northern Cyprus.
  There are some member states of the EU which are slightly embarrassed by the fact that the application from Cyprus is being treated in the same way as the five other current applications. They are wrong to be embarrassed and wrong to see Cyprus as a separate case. Cyprus has a significant problem in its recent history, but it has many attributes that would be of benefit to the EU and mutually beneficial to the island of Cyprus.
  I look forward to the day when Turkey can be welcomed into the family of European nations. There are major obstacles to that, but I congratulate the British Government on maintaining contact with Turkey during the British EU presidency and on making sure that Turkey has not been excluded from EU affairs at a critical stage.
  We all share the disappointment at the further militarisation of the island, the addition of military hardware, the overflights we have seen and the inevitable increases in tension which have resulted from that. We all share the view of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who wished the three special envoys well. I understand why Richard Holbrooke has had other priorities, but I hope that he will now give his full attention to the problems of Cyprus, because America is a key player.
  Britain is also a key player. We are in a unique position in respect of the island of Cyprus as a guarantor nation. If I am to express any disappointment about the position of the Government, it is that I do not think that sufficient energy has been applied to the Cyprus question over the past six or seven months, and during the British presidency.
  We last discussed the matter on 29 October last year—when we were nearing the end of the Luxembourg presidency—just after a summit at a place called
  266
  Mondorf-les-Bains, a town which has slipped back into obscurity since that important meeting. I asked the then Minister for Europe what had transpired at the meeting and what progress the Government had sought and accomplished in terms of Cyprus. I expressed the view that the British presidency would put Cyprus at the top of the priority list, so key was the achievement of an acceptable solution there. Perhaps the guarantor powers should get together again to see what they can do to support constructively the communities in Cyprus as they try to achieve a peaceful solution.
  An additional factor is the substantial Cypriot communities within this country. Perversely, those expatriates may be part of the key to the solution. If we can engender better understanding between the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities in London and elsewhere in this country, we might achieve a better solution in Cyprus. Hon. Members feel passionately about this subject and often express the views of significant communities within their constituencies. However, we do not assist the peace process if we become too partisan—if we become two groups of cheerleaders in the House for the different communities in Cyprus rather than seeing the common view, which is that peace there is to the advantage of both communities and that a peaceful solution is encompassed within the bizonal solution for which we have strived for so long and within an understanding between the two communities of the tensions that surround them.
  On that note, I will sit down, but I hope that the Minister will be able to explain the positive moves that the British Government can make in the next six months, which are as critical to the future of Cyprus as the previous six months and the six before that. While the European Union application is on the table, we must make substantive progress towards arriving at a satisfactory solution to the problems in Cyprus.
  10.40 am
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I have also recently visited Cyprus as a guest of Morphou and the Friends of Cyprus. Time is short and I shall make only a couple of brief points.
  First, on the Loizidou case, I also visited people in the north with the consent of the Government of Cyprus and, as a lawyer, I had discussions with northern Cypriot lawyers. I was concerned at the approach towards the rule of law, which seemed to suggest that the Loizidou case was political and could, therefore, be ignored. We must get over the message to the Turks and the Turkish Cypriots that one cannot pick and choose as regards decisions of the European Court.
  Secondly, a number of other cases have arisen on the back of Loizidou, including that of a Turkish Cypriot paediatrician who is also taking action against the Turkish Government because he is prevented from visiting the south to talk with his fellow professionals. We must convince the Turkish Government and Turkish Cypriots in the north that the ban on bicommunal contact on the island between people in the north and south must be stopped. If we are to have any chance of getting the two sides together, there must be contact between the two communities. The authorities have been unable to prevent such contact off the island—there have been contacts between professionals, business people and students.

  267
  If we are to have any chance of securing peace, those contacts must resume and I hope that the Minister will make it clear that we will do all we can to ensure that Mr. Denktas's ban is lifted forthwith.
  10.42 am
  Mr. Michael Trend: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this important debate. In his excellent speech, he combined passion with clarity, which is a rare combination on such occasions.
  Cyprus is a subject of deep concern to all parties in the House. It is an island with which the United Kingdom has had a long, historic association and a deep and continuing interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and I regret the lack of progress in the matter recently, but the Cyprus question is a difficult one. Like many other contentious international areas that have been partitioned—Northern Ireland and Kashmir come to mind—Cyprus evokes heated debate, as the robust contributions from the hon. Members for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) and for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) demonstrated. Greece and Turkey hold different views on the status of Cyprus and so too do the legal Government of Cyprus and the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus. Heated exchanges take place concerning the status of the various United Nations resolutions and treaties that govern the island. There are also tragic stories of atrocities and unfairness, displacement from homes and abuses of human rights. Pressure groups with their own agendas compete for political time and attention. They leap upon nuances of which speakers may be unaware. In short, it is a subject in which a misturned phrase can upset the best of intentions.
  The Conservative party has paid close attention to developments in Cyprus. We condemned the brutal invasion in 1974. We drafted and secured the adoption of Security Council resolution 541 in 1984, which declared the Turkish Cypriot declaration of independence legally invalid. Since then, Cyprus has been discussed frequently in Parliament and elsewhere. The former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), and both his Foreign Secretaries, Lord Hurd and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, raised the future of Cyprus with their Turkish and Greek counterparts. Sir David Hannay was appointed special representative to Cyprus to assist in bringing the two sides together.
  Our high commission in Nicosia encouraged intercommunal contact. Britain provided soldiers to the UN force that was monitoring the green line. Malcolm Rifkind made the first bilateral visit by a Foreign Secretary to Cyprus in December 1996, when he held discussions with President Clerides and Mr. Denktash. Those positive developments have been preserved by the present Government. I also commend the work done in the area in the previous Parliament and since by our former colleague from Edmonton, Dr. Ian Twinn. May I also say how pleased the Conservative party was at the re-election of President Clerides. We work closely with the Democratic Rally party through the European Democrat Union and enjoy the electoral success of fellow centre right parties in Europe—it is rare these days. We will also await with interest the results of the elections in the north of the island and in Turkey, as they may materially affect the future of Cyprus.
  268
  Our concern for the future of Cyprus has not diminished since we lost office in May 1997. We want an overall settlement. We want peace and stability on the island, with the two communities confident in their own rights and responsibilities. A settlement would help both Greece and Turkey to normalise their relationship and reduce their defence spending. A settlement would reduce the tension between two NATO nations and that tension is very real. A number of disturbing events have taken place in the past few months. We do not want further militarisation of the island. The stand-off over the acquisition of missiles by the Government of Cyprus and the response by the Turkish Government are disturbing and highlight the importance of achieving a lasting settlement. We also understand the concerns voiced by Greek Cypriots about Turkish settlement in the north. A reduction in Turkish troops in northern Cyprus would improve the climate for a negotiated settlement.
  All parties must accept that Cyprus is a great source of instability in the region. That is why the previous Government made great efforts to assist in providing a solution. Under the new Government, Britain should continue to be involved closely with the search for a solution and should support attempts to bring about a lasting settlement.
  I must make it clear where the Conservative party stands. The UN "Set of Ideas"—bizonal and bicommunal—that was submitted in 1992 remains central to discussion of the island's future. Only the two communities can decide what is acceptable and what is likely to last. Britain's role should be to offer advice and provide support for UN operations on the island and for international attempts to mediate between the two sides. The Opposition do not support the confederation proposal of Mr. Denktas, nor do we favour measures that would perpetuate rather than remedy the present division of the island.
  Britain, as one of the three guarantors of Cyprus with Greece and Turkey, has a special interest in the island's future. Our sovereign bases are of strategic importance. We will support the Government and the international community in attempts to bring about a peaceful and lasting settlement.
  Conservatives support the European Union's decision to open accession negotiations with Cyprus, which was the main thrust of the speech by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). We hope that a solution can be found so that the whole island can join. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, we are firm in our belief that no country outside the European Union should have the power to veto EU membership. The criteria for joining are set out and countries that meet those criteria should be allowed in. That is a clear message for those who may try to block the accession or intimidate the recognised Government of Cyprus to prevent them from pursuing their application for membership.
  I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who said in his excellent speech that we should also support Turkey's aim to join the European Union one day, but only when it clearly meets human rights and other criteria. However, the handling of Turkey was one of the less successful aspects of the British presidency of the European Union. Instead of considering Turkey as a potential member and friend, the Government treated it as a threat and in return,

  269
  the Turkish Government have turned their back on the EU for the moment. Turkey is a key NATO ally and has an important geopolitical role. We do not want Turkey to be turned away from the path of the west, as that will only endanger stability in the region, especially the stability of Cyprus.
  The prize is great. Cyprus can expect to be host to almost a million United Kingdom tourists this year alone—perhaps more. It is a most beautiful island. More visitors will go there if it is reunited. Cyprus offers unique access to markets and a skilled, educated and energetic population of both Greek and Turkish origin.
  The economic benefits of a settlement would act as a springboard for further growth and opportunity on the island. Overseas investment—from the United Kingdom, for example—would be strengthened and encouraged. We want a successful and united Cyprus, where both communities co-operate together freely, with confidence in their future and that of their shared island.
  10.49 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on his good fortune in securing this debate and on his choice of subject. There is no doubt, given his and other hon. Members' contributions, that this is a matter of keen interest, about which many hon. Members have a great deal of knowledge.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said, although this is my first Adjournment debate on Cyprus as a Foreign Office Minister, I have spoken in similar debates from the Opposition Front Bench, and so I have been obliged to reflect on what has changed in the past few years. Since the de facto division of the island some 25 years ago, progress has been frustratingly slow, but some new elements in the current situation should encourage us to make strenuous efforts to ensure that a settlement is reached.
  The Government's position is clear. We remain committed to working for a comprehensive political settlement that would bring the two communities of Cyprus together within a single, sovereign state. The international community has also made it clear that it wants that state to consist of a bicommunal, bizonal federation and that such a state would have its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded. Moreover, the political settlement should exclude any form of partition, secession or union—in whole or in part—with any other country.
  I am glad that, in this debate, there has been cross-party support for that approach, to which we have subscribed for many years. I am also glad that there have been few efforts to make distinctions between the policies pursued by this Government and the previous Government—or, indeed, by other political parties. I noted a slight remonstrance from the Liberal Democrat spokesman to the effect that the Government have been back-pedalling or going slow, but I do not accept that that is so. Since I took up my current post at the end of July, I have been struck by the number of meetings and initiatives on Cyprus in which we are involved and the proportion of my time that is taken up with the matter, although I do
  270
  not regret that. Now that the United Kingdom no longer has the presidency of the European Union, some of the initiatives may not receive as much publicity, but we are none the less actively engaged in a variety of ways, to which I hope, despite the shortness of time, I shall be able to refer.
  We subscribe and determinedly keep to the policy that I have outlined for a number of reasons. First, in 1960, both sides agreed to a single state based on political equality between the two communities as the basis for the newly independent Cyprus; it seems reasonable to assume that, with international help and advice, they could do so again. Secondly, although I understand the fears and insecurities of people in both communities, we remain convinced that a united Cyprus in which the rights of both communities are respected is the best assurance of the future security and prosperity of all on the island of Cyprus. We believe that the two communities can create a way ahead that would allow a united, stable and prosperous Cyprus to enter the new millennium. We should be encouraged by the efforts that have been made in other situations across the world, including some close to home—in Northern Ireland—to achieve a settlement even when the historical circumstances have been difficult. We must focus on what we can achieve and bend all our efforts to that end.
  As has been said, the United Kingdom is in a unique position, not only as a guarantor power, but as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and as a member of the European Union. Given those three elements of responsibility, we are committed to using our position to do all that we can to bring about a just and lasting settlement. A solution must be achieved through peaceful dialogue, which is why we support the UN Secretary-General's efforts to broker a settlement. We believe that his approach offers the best way forward; indeed, we committed ourselves to making progress in that way at the UN General Assembly in September, when the Secretary-General and his staff held talks on Cyprus with the different countries involved.
  The support of the Secretary-General's mission of good offices is important, and I was pleased that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) referred to the work on the island of Dame Ann Hercus, to whom I pay tribute. She is a well-respected New Zealand politician, who we believe can make a real contribution; her efforts to develop on-island contacts between the parties to reduce tensions and promote progress are extremely important. Our representative Sir David Hannay, who was also referred to, continues to be extremely energetic and to work closely with Dame Ann Hercus, which we should all welcome.
  On the new elements that I mentioned, we welcome all attempts to think constructively about a settlement for Cyprus, but we do not believe that Mr. Denktas's proposals are consistent with the objective of a bizonal, bicommunal federation. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting mentioned Cyprus's application to join the European Union, which we very much welcome. I have read the columns of Hansard to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet referred; they do not read ambiguously to me, but I assure him that we do not accept that anyone has a veto on the process of EU accession. Obviously, we want moves towards a settlement of the Cyprus problem to proceed as quickly as possible, but that is not a pre-condition of accession.

  271
  None the less, we attach importance to associating Turkish Cypriots with the accession process, however difficult that may be. We regret the continuing Turkish Cypriot refusal to take up the offer of participation in the team that is negotiating the terms of accession. We and our EU partners believe that it would be in their interests to do so, and we shall continue to point out the benefits of such participation.
  Some hon. Members referred to the often very good relationships between Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities in the United Kingdom. When speaking to representatives of both those communities, I have often detected a great deal of support for the idea of Cyprus belonging to the European Union; they feel that accession would be in the interest of Cyprus's prosperity and that it should proceed constructively. It will be much better if the Turkish Cypriots take part in the process, but they do not have a veto and neither does Turkey.
  Some hon. Members referred to military tensions. I agree that we do not want those tensions to increase either in Cyprus or in the neighbouring region, and we have urged restraint on all sides.

  World Trade Organisation
  11 am
  Dr. Howard Stoate: As the only general practitioner among Labour Members of Parliament, my main area of interest is health policy: how we treat our citizens when they fall ill or are injured, and how the national health service is organised to meet their increasing needs.
  A major plank of the Government's health plans is to improve our health through public health measures and preventive medicine, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that environmental factors have a significant impact on health. The incidence of asthma in children has risen by 50 per cent. in the past 30 years; the next generation is already suffering from the mistakes of the last.
  The World Health Organisation claimed last week in The Independent that 30 per cent. of cancers of the breast, colon and prostate are associated with nutrition; the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health has just published a report linking air pollution with some childhood cancers; and holes in the ozone layer are leading to an increase in skin cancer. The fact is that the incidence of cancer is increasing: breast cancer has doubled in the past 50 years, sperm counts are falling and there is increasing evidence that there is a close link with environmental factors; but we do not yet understand the scale and scope of the problem.
  It is becoming increasingly clear that, if our initiatives on public health are to bring significant results, "Our Healthier Nation" needs to live within our healthier planet.
  My constituents in Dartford regularly raise animal welfare concerns with me, through correspondence and meetings. We are an animal-loving nation and we have many organisations that do important work to protect animals. Environmental, animal welfare and health issues are inextricably linked. Wild animals rely on the environment for their habitats, and domesticated animals are affected by our attitudes to farming and meeting the world's food needs. Our responses to the challenges posed on environmental issues will have a direct impact on the health of individuals and populations throughout the world.
  Over the past half-century, our food and the methods used to produce it have changed beyond recognition. The use of growth hormones, antibiotics, pesticides and other chemicals has hugely increased food production and yields but it also affects the health not only of our people but of the planet.
  The revolution in food is not over. Scientific advances are bringing further benefits and further threats. Genetically modified food is already on supermarket shelves and seems set to increase rapidly in the future.
  New farming methods used in raising livestock have taken our exploitation of animals to extremes that many—some quite literally—find unpalatable. Changes in food production and distribution methods have brought great advantages for consumers. The market now offers consumers an enormous range of food and drink from all continents.
  Choice has never been greater, and the great British consumer has learnt to exercise that choice and to use his or her economic power to bring positive benefits. Notably,

  273
  CFCs in aerosols have been banned, thanks in large part to consumers who switched to buying the less harmful and, importantly, similarly priced alternatives. It is now difficult to find tuna that has not been caught with rod and line, which helps to protect dolphins. Producers have had to change their methods or lose their markets. Cruelty-free cosmetics are continuing their rise in popularity, reflecting the public's concerns over animal testing.
  The consumer movement has had its successes and its failures. The markets for environmentally friendly detergents and fairly traded goods have not—so far—developed far enough to bring about the changes in buying patterns needed to transform production methods. Consumer-led changes in the market are possible only when alternative products are available and can compete in the marketplace on both quality and price. There will be occasions when Government action is needed, to offer incentives for certain production methods and disincentives for others.
  The marketplace is now global; the problems are global; and solutions must also be global.
  Trade is a good thing. Trade liberalisation is, in general, to be welcomed as it increases prosperity. Economic protectionism is almost always short-termist and short-sighted. It is better for all concerned if trade takes place in a rules-based system. A free-for-all leaves weaker economies at the mercy of the stronger. I support the general agreement on tariffs and trade—GATT—and welcome the creation of the World Trade Organisation.
  I support the WTO's desire to press liberalisation further in the millennium round, as that could have a positive impact on existing protectionist practices such as the common agricultural policy; but I called for this debate because, in my view, the WTO has failed adequately to address the social, environmental and animal welfare issues in our global trading network.
  In fact, I do the World Trade Organisation a disservice. Rather than simply failing to address the issues, it has, through its actions, worked against the implementation of measures introduced to protect our environment.
  The essential principle of the GATT system is non-discrimination. Countries are not allowed to discriminate against imports on grounds of country of origin, or to favour their own producers. That does not mean that there are no grounds on which they are permitted to discriminate. Article XX of the general agreement allows exceptions to World Trade Organisation rules under certain circumstances. One such exception is for
  "measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health."
  Unfortunately, WTO rulings in practice have often led to judgments that have not protected humans, animals or the environment.
  There are many examples: legislators and citizens throughout the European Union have expressed concern over the use of growth-accelerating hormones in cattle. Although there is no absolute proof, there is strong evidence to suggest that those chemicals can cause an increase in cancers and male infertility. In reaction to that concern, the European Union introduced a ban on the sale
  274
  of meat and meat products from animals on which six specified hormones had been used to accelerate growth—a ban which, it should be noted, was to apply equally to domestic and foreign producers in an entirely non-discriminatory manner.
  The ban was challenged by the United States on the grounds that it imposed unfair trade barriers. The World Trade Organisation panel ruled that the ban would violate world trade agreements and was not scientifically justified, but it admitted that the hormones in question have a carcinogenic potential. That decision favoured the US in allowing its hormone-saturated beef into the European market, but the US does not always get its own way. In 1990, environmentalists in America passed an amendment to the Clean Air Act requiring oil refineries to produce cleaner petrol. The law would affect areas such as Los Angeles that are classified as grossly falling below clean air standards. Required improvements were to vary depending on a baseline of standards achieved in 1990.
  The problem, and the reason for World Trade Organisation involvement, was that it was impossible to obtain accurate baseline figures for petrol produced in refineries outside the USA. It was decided to use as a base figure the US industry average, which ensured that imported petrol sold from 1990 onwards in areas with specific clean air problems would have to be cleaner than the US average of 1990, while the US industry would have to clean up its own supply in order to access the same markets.
  The appeal this time came from Brazil and Venezuela, which claimed that the system unfairly excluded their dirtier and more polluting fuel from the US market—and they won. The World Trade Organisation again sacrificed environmental and public health concerns on the altar of unrestricted free trade. The US Environmental Protection Agency was forced to introduce less effective regulations, thus setting back the aim of cleaner air for American cities.
  It must be galling for environmental campaigners to have worked hard for years within the democratic process to implement legislation, only to have all their good work undone.
  Much publicity has been given recently to the so-called shrimp-turtle case, in which US measures to ban imports of shrimps caught in nets that also trap and kill turtles were deemed illegal. Free trade ideologues argue that under GATT, a state is allowed to protect only its own wildlife, not that of other countries. The situation is more complicated than it seems, and charges of protectionism have been levelled at the US.
  On closer inspection of the details of the shrimp-turtle ruling, it appears that the judgment was not as damaging to environmental protection as the headlines suggest, and that the US was guilty of banning all imports from particular countries without distinguishing between those caught in turtle-friendly nets and those not. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on the implications of the shrimp-turtle ruling, and a statement from the British Government on their approach to the problem.
  This may sound an arcane or academic dispute, but far from it. News came last week that Canada is taking the French Government to the WTO to complain about a French ban on white asbestos, yet in France alone, 2,000 people a year die of cancer caused by asbestos. I urge the

  275
  Government to support the French case robustly and, more importantly, to introduce a ban on white asbestos in the UK as soon as possible.
  There have been threats from American-based multinationals to take the UK Government to the WTO if they seek to limit the introduction of genetically modified crops or food to the UK. I hope that the Government will resist that pressure. If there are concerns about the impact on either human health or the environment, our Government have not only the right but a duty to act.
  I accept that the WTO has a difficult job to balance its judgments between extreme protectionism and total free-market deregulation. A third way needs to be found between those two positions; note that I got the third way in there—I thought it important to do so. The WTO must draw a line when deciding which restrictions are justified and on what grounds. It has acted decisively and strongly and drawn a line in the sand, but unfortunately it is in entirely the wrong place.
  In these decisions, the WTO seems to be saying that it will not allow Government to have any control over production methods of imported food. It will intervene only when we can prove that food kills people. The bias is weighted too far in favour of unlimited free trade and against our health and environment.
  The WTO fails to distinguish between non-product process and production methods. Those are methods of producing goods that cannot be seen in the final product. I could not distinguish by sight or taste between two bananas, the first grown on a small farm in the Caribbean, providing essential jobs and a strong economy for the home nation, and the second grown on a huge, intensively farmed plantation using large quantities of pesticides and owned by a multinational corporation.
  The WTO can recognise the differences in process and production methods, but chooses not to. Current practice does not allow distinctions based on different production methods to be made, irrespective of the damage that some methods may cause. My criticism of the WTO is that it has taken anti-protectionism too far and effectively banned the legislation that is needed to improve our environment.
  I want the Government to press our European Union partners and other GATT signatories to recognise the right of nations to take action to discourage socially and environmentally damaging processes. It is already accepted that it is allowable to ban goods that are produced by slave or prison labour. It should be equally allowable to ban goods that are produced in an environmentally destructive manner. The Government should press strongly for the right of states to take measures to protect the health and well-being of their populations and environment.
  The primary purpose of GATT is to
  "raise the standard of living, ensure full employment and economic growth, develop the full uses of the resources of the world and expand the trade in goods".
  I do not believe that that purpose and social and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. The essence of the third way—I put it in again, please notice—in this and other sectors is that, although we cannot have the best of both worlds, we can eradicate the worst. We can have environmental legislation without preventing the global market from operating effectively. We can accept
  276
  the reality and the benefits of trading within a world market economy without sacrificing social and humanitarian values.
  Considering its power over everyone's lives, the WTO is a shadowy and secretive body; the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England is a model of democratic openness by comparison. The WTO is staffed mainly by trade professionals who place the goal of liberalisation above all else. It is resistant to the notion of dialogue with civil society. Its appellate body, which adjudicates on disputes, is shrouded in so much mystery and jargon that few outsiders have a chance of understanding what is going on, let alone influencing it.
  The British Government should lead a campaign to open up the WTO's workings. These issues are too important to be left to professional trade negotiators. We all have a stake in the outcome. We have a right to know what is going on and to make representations if we do not like the way things are going.
  The key to the operation of any rules-based system is, first, how the rules are written and, secondly, who interprets and applies them. There is certainly scope for the GATT clauses on social and environmental protection to be made clearer and less ambiguous, but there will always be room for dispute about the precise meaning, so the role of the WTO and the way in which it adjudicates on disputes is crucial.
  Developing countries' Governments are often suspicious of talk of building environmental protection into global trading systems. They see it as yet another way in which the rich north will exploit them: a smokescreen to hide economic protectionism to keep their goods out. There is no doubt that some of those who argue against trade liberalisation on ostensibly environmental grounds are motivated more by selfish than by altruistic concerns.
  We need to find ways to structure the system so that developing countries' fears are reduced. More openness would help here, but there is a still greater need for some acts of good faith by the developed world to demonstrate a willingness to dismantle protectionist barriers. In effect, there is a need for a new global bargain, in which the developed world ends some of its existing, unjustifiable discrimination, in return for the developing world accepting the legitimacy of discrimination against products and processes that damage the environment or involve unacceptable social practices.
  Financial incentives for environmental, social and animal welfare production methods can be introduced. Technology transfer, aid, grants and loans should be used to assist developing nations to attain the economic growth that they need without a similar growth in pollution. Consumer power must be enhanced with mandatory labelling schemes, so that shoppers are aware of how the products that they are choosing reached the shelf; the emphasis of the WTO must be moved from suppliers to consumers. Most importantly, we must work to establish multilateral agreements on a wide range of issues to ensure that pressure for action on environmental and animal welfare issues is broad based and international and can deliver results.
  I ask the Minister to address these issues, in partnership with our friends in Europe, the Commonwealth and the rest of the world, in the next WTO round next year. I believe that a reasonable balance can be found between

  277
  trade liberalisation and environmental protection and animal welfare. I urge the Government to make that a high priority in their negotiating objectives for the next WTO round and to take the lead in persuading our partners throughout the world to do likewise.
  Matters of this importance to the entire global economy and environment must not be left in the hands of unaccountable trade negotiators; such delicate matters must be under democratic political control. Last year, the EU trade commissioner called for a high-level meeting to take the trade and environment agenda forward. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what has happened since, what the UK is doing to ensure that such a meeting takes place and what he proposes to offer for our side of the bargain.
  The Prime Minister said at this year's WTO ministerial meeting:
  "Governments need to consider the environmental impact of everything they do, including in the trade sphere".
  I wholeheartedly agree. We also need to ensure that further liberalisation does not undermine existing, hard won standards of social protection. How then do the Government propose to ensure that environmental and social concerns are at the heart of the millennium trade round?
  If we get the agenda right, the next 50 years can be as successful in promoting trade as the last fifty. If we do not, we will see a gradual but steady erosion of free trade as the backlash takes hold. We have already seen the beginnings of that with the American public's hostility to the North American Free Trade Agreement. A Government committed to freeing the global economy from restrictive practices cannot afford to ignore people's legitimate concerns to safeguard the environment and social protection. I am confident that this Government will not make that mistake.
  11.16 am
  Mr. Norman Baker: May I first say how pleased I am that this debate is taking place and congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on his comments? I agree with virtually everything he said. He crammed a lot into 15 minutes. I hope that, today, we will receive some assurances from the Minister that the Government view the matter with the same gravity as the hon. Members who are present in this reasonably well-attended debate on a Wednesday morning. I hope also that he will tell us how they intend to tackle this hugely important matter.
  May I remind the Minister that an early-day motion on this very subject, which I tabled with other Members earlier this session, has now been signed by almost 100 Members? It shows clear support and concern for the thrust of this debate—concern that is cross-party, I think—and Members' determination to ensure that the Government take this issue seriously.
  I believe that the Government's intentions are honourable and sensible in this matter, but I wonder whether they have the will power; I hope that I will have the assurance today that they do.
  The hon. Member for Dartford mentioned genetically modified food. I raised that matter with the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
  278
  who has responsibility for food safety, in the Select Committee on Environmental Audit. There was great sympathy from him on that occasion, but he said, "We are not in the driving seat"—that was his exact phrase.
  That may be true, but the Government must get into the driving seat and ensure that they control events. It may not be easy. There may be opposition from the American Government and others, but the Government have to force this issue and ensure that the environmental, animal welfare and social concerns that all hon. Members share, I think, are taken into account. They must not throw up their hands and say, "We cannot do anything about it." I hope that the Government will take that seriously; I am confident that they will.
  Of course my party supports free trade—that is nothing new from Liberals—but we are not Manchester Liberals. We think that the market has to be regulated to achieve social, environmental and welfare ends. Part of the problem with the WTO is that it could stand for Welfare Taken Out, for the reasons cited by the hon. Member for Dartford. We must have free trade, but we must not be afraid to regulate it. There would be no reason for our being here if we simply let the market rule without trying to influence it. That is why we have specific concerns about the WTO and the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
  Environmental, social or welfare concerns raised by any nation or group of nations are being challenged across the world. The lowest common denominator will triumph unless our Parliament and the world community prevent that. The basic rules of GATT are being manipulated towards that end, although that is not GATT's purpose. The original purpose of GATT must be re-emphasised.
  The hon. Member for Dartford set out his several examples extremely well. There is a conflict between different international agreements. We have WTO and GATT on one hand, and other agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—CITES—and the biodiversity convention on the other; and we should overcome this disparity. The hon. Gentleman referred to turtles, a case in which the Americans—the good guys this time—are trying to honour CITES and to protect the turtles. Opposition has made protection difficult, however. We must clarify these international agreements.
  Then there is the ban on the import of fur derived from the use of leg-hold traps. Hon. Members on both sides find it abhorrent that animals can be trapped in that way. They suffer for days on end, and either have their limbs chewed off by the traps or chew their limbs off themselves so that they can escape. We are importing fur to satisfy consumer demand, but even those consumers who want fur do not want animals to be captured in that way. However, we appear to be stuck with it. European Union attempts to introduce a sensible animal welfare policy on fur trapping have been challenged. It cannot he right that a small group of people who have a narrow vested interest in retaining the status quo can wipe out the rest of the world's concerns. The Government and the EU must have the backbone to challenge that opposition.
  Social, environmental and animal welfare concerns also raise what might be called selfish issues for United Kingdom producers. Participants in Monday's agriculture debate may have heard me mention that our farmers

  279
  produce chickens to given standards, but are being undercut by the import of chickens from Thailand that are processed in the UK, then labelled British. Whenever we accept a lower welfare standard, we fail to raise welfare standards in other countries, and we face the danger that the higher standards that apply here will be driven down. Consumers believe that those chickens are British because of their labels. The consequence will not be that Thai farmers will stop keeping chickens in poor conditions, but that British chicken farming, which has higher standards—although conditions for British chickens are not brilliant—will close down because it is uneconomic.
  Parliament should set an example, and should set out the ideals towards which we should strive. Basic decency says that animals should be treated acceptably. We must look after the environment, too. We cannot have standards driven down by international agreements that have been misinterpreted and skewed by small interest groups. If we are not successful in changing international rules, what is the point of having higher standards?
  We should take a warning from the case of veal crates. We banned them, but the veal consequently imported from Europe is reared to much lower standards. We must get international agreement on such matters; otherwise, the good work done in the UK will be undermined elsewhere.
  I want to mention two measures that the Government could take. First, article III of GATT could be amended to allow countries to distinguish between products on the basis of the way in which they have been produced. Secondly, article XX could be strengthened to allow trade measures to protect human, animal and plant life. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) will be able to catch the Speaker's eye.
  11.24 am
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I want to deal with animal welfare, which is close to my heart. I am a trustee of Animal Defenders, an interest I declare now.
  Aside from great political issues, the issue most raised in my postbag, and in those of most Members of Parliament, is animal welfare. Animal rights have come to the forefront over the past decade, and increasingly so during the past year or two. Many of us will remember the recent emotional debates on hunting with dogs, and the substantial vote against it. I was fortunate to be drawn to ask a question at the last Prime Minister's Question Time before the summer recess, and I asked my right hon. Friend to undertake to honour our party's pledge to deal with hunting with dogs, and to bring in a total ban on that detestable and despicable activity. I do not forecast that that will happen in the next Queen's Speech, but I expect it to be in the one after because of indications that have been floated. I am disappointed that the time has not yet come, but it will come over the next couple of years. The House will have another free and democratic vote on hunting.
  Debates of this type are understandably emotional. However, we have all witnessed the cruel treatment of animals on our televisions. Experimentation and the transport of live animals for slaughter are unbearable to many people, especially young people—from students to primary school children. The advance of computers and new technology into the classroom has created a growing
  280
  potential for involvement by those youngsters, and that augurs well for the character of British society. That—if I may use the phrase—is the British way.
  Our minimum standards for the export of animals mean that sheep are packed in by the hundred. Huge transporters, four tiers high, are used in Europe. There is supposed to be a mutual agreement that sheep must be watered after eight hours, but it does not happen. The average time without water is between 18 and 24 hours. I am told that sheep sometimes go 36 hours without feed of any kind.
  Horses and ponies are sent in their thousands for slaughter abroad. As deputy leader of the British delegation to the Council of Europe, I know that countries have joined that organisation from eastern Europe where, with all due respect, people are indifferent to animal welfare. There are many circuses in that part of the world. We have tried to plead with delegates to introduce a code of conduct and to bring humanity to the care of animals.
  To return to an earlier point, because of appalling slaughtering standards, the Government do not allow certain animal exports. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) noted the existence of conflicting standards.
  I cannot mention the establishment in question because it is in the constituency of another Member who is not present, but I recently tabled an early-day motion:
  "That this House condemns the appalling and deplorable trade practice at establishments that breed cats and kittens for the vivisection industry and sell them to laboratories worldwide; notes that some of these kittens are only six weeks old when they are subject to horrific experiments; and calls upon the Home Secretary to investigate this cruel trade".
  Police protection for the establishment concerned has cost £1.5 million of taxpayers' money. There are others, unfortunately, involved in a cruel trade with barbaric practices that puts profit before humanity.
  More and more people believe that it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer and die in the laboratory. We know that laboratory animals feel pain in the same way that we do. The law acknowledges that and science accepts it, too. Thousands of animals suffer and die in research laboratories to test cosmetics and toiletries such as lipstick, soap and shampoo. Many such products, which we use every day, have been paid for with suffering. Drips are put into the unprotected eyes of animals, rubbed into the raw, shaven backs of guinea pigs or forced down the throats of rats. I do not want to describe such things because the result is obviously not beautiful. We must consider when purchasing such things whether we should give the producers concerned our custom.
  I want to say a few words about circus animals. Many hon. Members will have seen the recent video "The Ugliest Show on Earth". Only last week, a circus came to the field next to my home. No matter how well housed the animals were, or how much the circus tried to say that their welfare was assured, I could hear animals howling during the night. It was obvious that they were bored. It is a contemptible method of subjecting them to something unnatural. I went to the local authority, which is Labour-controlled, and which I used to lead, and pleaded. I asked why it had given these people a licence but there was no law that could stop it. The land was private. The circus was to stay for seven days. It could apply for 10 days; it stayed a fortnight. Unfortunately, we cannot control these things unless we want to legislate.

  281
  Animals do not smoke, drink alcohol, drive, use paints or drop bombs, but we do. If we do those things, why should they suffer for our weakness?
  11.33 am
  Dr. Nick Palmer: I declare a general interest in that I advise Novartis, a multinational company. It may have an interest in the matter, but I do not know its particular views. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on his excellent summary of the problem. He reflected the concern of many hon. Members and many among the general public.
  We recently debated the multilateral agreement on investment. A broad spectrum of people mobilised opposition to the agreement as it stood, because of concerns about its impact on developing countries and their ability to protect their development in an environmentally friendly way that would be acceptable to most people in Britain. Many were surprised by the breadth of the opposition to the agreement in the form in which it stood, yet the discussion on the MAI was largely on the relatively narrow issue of the rights of developing countries. That is an important issue, but it engages only a certain number of non-governmental organisations.
  In the Word Trade Organisation debate, concern comes from a very broad range of NGOs. There are the groups concerned with the environment. We all recognise now that the environment of one country affects the environment of all others. There are groups concerned with development and social issues, both in the third world and closer to home, and groups concerned with animal welfare. The hunting debate showed that the animal welfare organisations can mobilise massive popular support.
  I predict that in many countries, but especially in Britain, if those groups together come to the conclusion that our policy on free trade is against the interests of their collective concerns, there will be a massive backlash against free trade, which is not in anyone's interests, because free trade has brought enormous benefits. We must ensure that the free trade agenda is not hijacked by narrow interests that are contemptuous of or indifferent to the concerns that we have raised. In the long run, that will damage us all.
  In principle, the WTO and the organisations that expressed concern enjoy broad consensus. Nearly everyone agrees that free trade within reasonable limits is a positive thing, which has brought many benefits. Most people agree that environmental concerns are appropriate. We are all periodically nasty about ruthless capitalist companies that try to exploit the environment, but the reality is that relatively few companies have an active interest in eradicating life and destroying the environment around them, because it is bad for business. The companies accept in principle that they benefit from sensible environmental rules if they are stable, fair and non-discriminatory.
  In the same way, in western Europe and north America, but in many other countries as well, it is accepted that it is desirable that production methods do not inflict great harm and suffering on animals. In particular, it is widely accepted that consumers should have the option of
  282
  avoiding products of whose production methods they do not approve. It is not widely recognised that it may be illegal to inform consumers about the way in which products are produced in certain circumstances.
  Most people believe that the rules on free trade simply mean that we must not be discriminatory, that we cannot pass a law saying that we will buy only British beef and stop anything else at the border. Most people accept that that is reasonable. It is not so broadly recognised that, under the rules as currently interpreted, production methods cannot be the subject of national legislation.
  The classic example is the battery hen. One cannot tell by looking at an egg whether it was produced by a battery or free-range hen. Under the interpretation commonly applied by the WTO and the general agreement on tariffs and trade, we are not allowed to discriminate against battery hens or battery hen production, because we are allowed to consider only the end product.
  The problem is that the overwhelming majority of ethical concerns—social, environmental, third world and animal welfare—relate to the means of production. I do not know anybody who wants to ban eggs, but I know many people who are concerned about eggs produced by intensively reared hens. I should like the Minister to accept that, in the interests of the long-term development of free trade, there is a need to seek a non-discriminatory way of addressing the problem of the means of production.
  There are precedents for this. As the hon. Member for Dartford said, when the general agreement on tariffs and trade was set up after the war, prison labour was specifically excluded from the areas in which discrimination was not allowed. It is possible to say that we will not take goods produced by prison labour. That was a specific exemption created during the post-war period, under the shadow of Nazi work camps, and it stands in isolation. As I understand it, it is thought not to be possible to introduce discrimination against products from bonded labour or child labour. There is a clear inconsistency, which I hope will give the Minister some leverage to enable him to make progress.
  I should like to ask some specific questions of the Minister. I shall be brief, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak, and I hope that we can leave the Minister time to address the issues.
  First, what does the Minister see as the main obstacles to progress? If he accepts that there is a problem, how does he envisage tackling them? Secondly, the European Union has said for some time, through the Commission, that it has been considering raising these issues at a high-level meeting before the next WTO conference. Will Britain take the initiative on the Council of Ministers to instruct the Commission to include these topics in its negotiating package and to prepare proposals to address the problem? In that way, Britain and Europe could be seen to be taking a lead.
  Thirdly, will Britain support proposals along the lines urged by Compassion in World Farming and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which have been active in these matters, to reinforce article XX of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, allowing nation states to take account of these matters? That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). I also agree that article III needs attention.

  283
  Will Britain promote discussion of a framework for mandatory labelling schemes for consumer information? Even those who feel reluctant to accept a relaxation in the rules to allow for welfare considerations accept that there is a reasonable case for consumers to know what the hell is going on, and how a product is produced. We need to be able to do that without being subject to international legal challenge. We should accept that the WTO would be able to examine a labelling scheme to ensure that it is not deliberately discriminatory, so that labels do not say, "British" or "Horrible foreign goods". We need to have the possibility of mandatory systems that will provide consumers with the choice they need.
  With the failure of the multilateral agreement on investment in the present round, there is now a vacuum in fair trade and fair investment rules. The debate on the multilateral agreement on investment and the current WTO debate show the need for a multi-pronged approach, balancing increasing liberalisation with adherence to agreed minimum standards.
  To take a slightly far-fetched parallel, it is a little like the Northern Ireland talks. It is difficult to make progress in one area unless the participants are confident that there will be a balance of progress in another area. The argument that we should agree to total liberalisation, and that the rest can be delegated to some animal welfare organisation, is not accepted by the groups involved, because they suspect, probably correctly, that they will be blocked in the later discussions.
  The time is right for the Government to take a lead internationally, and to perform a real service for the world trading community by looking for a framework in which liberalised trade can be supplemented by ethical standards. I believe that most people would be extremely pleased if the Minister and his colleagues would take the initiative. We would all be proud of our country if we could bring about something along those lines to help solve this problem, which ultimately concerns so many people.
  11.45 am
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) for selecting this topic, and for his coherent and comprehensive introduction to an important debate. He touched on a number of issues, which I hope that the Minister will address in some detail when he replies. In one of those issues—the current case being fought by the Canadian Government against the French on white asbestos—I hope that the Government will do all they can to support our French colleagues in resisting what Canada has done.
  I can draw on a recent example in the Council of Europe. The Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), produced a report which would outlaw the use and manufacture of asbestos throughout the Council of Europe area. There was a pathetic display by the Canadian Government, who propped up the Russians. The Canadian Government tabled amendments on which the Russians had not been briefed, and they got the Russians to express points of view which contradicted their own standpoint on many of these issues.
  The Canadians and the Russians did all they could to frustrate what was universally accepted in the room, except by those two nations, as something that would benefit the people of Europe. As has been said, asbestos
  284
  has killed people by the thousand in our country every year, and many of us felt that its continued use was a breach of human rights. It is as much a death sentence as any execution carried out in the Ukraine or elsewhere.
  We must be vigilant, and support nations who are prepared to tackle this issue. On this occasion, the Government should do all they can to support the French. More importantly, I hope that the British Government will show initiative in taking on board the resolution of the Council of Europe pretty damn quickly, and bringing it into law in this country.
  The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) spoke for the overwhelming majority of hon. Members when he mentioned his frustration at not being able to pursue the hunting Bill. Since we have been back from the recess, we have had two non-working Fridays—presumably there will be another next week—and the House has gone home early three times. There would have been enough time to see that very good Bill go through all its stages. We would probably have had sufficient time to frustrate the frustraters.
  That Bill could have become law if the Government had had the resolve that they suggested when they were in opposition. I hope that the Bill will come back. I should like to see it in the next Queen's Speech, but, if the whispers that it may appear in the one after next are correct, I hope that that is a commitment that the Government will not shirk, and that we will see the Bill come to fruition in the lifetime of this Parliament.
  For the past 30 years, I have campaigned in my city for the banning of the export of live animals. It came to a head in the late 1970s, when we opened our own ferry port. Nobody who has travelled by car on a ferry containing animals in transit can fail to be moved and emotionally embarrassed by the fact that human beings can allow animals to be transported in such a way. I have been on ships in force eight or nine gales, during which the ferry companies have been embarrassed to allow people back to the car decks because of the noise of the animals. That continues.
  Hon. Members have talked about the four-tier lorries transporting sheep across Europe. I witnessed an accident on the border between Romania and Hungary at the end of the winter. A lorry containing sheep had overturned, and 30 or 50 dead sheep were sprawled across the road; blood was pouring into the sand. That was the horrific consequence of a nasty accident. There were at least twice as many animals on the lorry as the law would have permitted in this country.
  The ironic thing is that those sheep had originated in the United Kingdom, and had been moved on to the lorry that crashed on the Romanian border. Their onward transhipment was through Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and then into the middle east. Animals reared in the UK and subject to the law of this country are being taken 2,500 miles across Europe and down into the middle east, and we do nothing about it. Most reasonable people would be horrified to know that such things go on.
  In March, I tabled a written question
  "To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will raise the issue of the effect of the GATT on EU animal welfare directives during the World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference in May".

  285
  The answer was:
  "The European Communities' final position … is still under discussion."—[Official Report, 24 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 110.]
  We held the presidency at that time. Why on earth did we not take that initiative on?
  In July, I tabled a written question to ask the Minister of Agriculture what plans he had to raise the export of cattle from the European Union to middle eastern countries. The answer was:
  "The Government have no plans to seek an end to the payment of export refunds on live cattle."—[Official Report, 24 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 707.]
  It was implied that we should wait for the value of dead meat exports to catch up.
  What a pathetic response from a nation that is supposed to care, and a Government who, in opposition, said that they would tackle these issues. It is no good saying that we cannot do it. I am grateful that we have signed up to the convention on international trade in endangered species. It is right that we are able to ban trade in endangered species, but surely we have a right and a duty to ban the cruel and inhumane transport and exploitation of animals that have been raised here. We cannot hide behind others any longer: we have to tackle this issue.
  I am bitterly disappointed that, when we held the presidency of the European Union, we did not do more. Organisations such as Animal Defenders, the National Anti-Vivisection Society and Compassion in World Farming have campaigned for decades to make the public understand the cruelty that goes on. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) talked about just some of the examples, including cosmetic testing and the blinding of animals to make sure that humans do not suffer. Most reasonable people are horrified when such practices are exposed, and rightly turn away from those products when they know.
  Many people—the Body Shop is a classic example—have made a virtue of establishing their credibility within the marketplace by showing that it is possible to make a profit without inflicting cruelty. It can and should work. We have to make sure that such issues are not ignored in the House.
  Too many of the people we represent believe that we have a direct responsibility to do something about animal welfare. I never cease to be amazed at how many times the issues are raised in the House and how little happens. In my previous existence as a Member of Parliament, the Conservatives were in power. What a pathetic example they gave of a party that is supposed to care. Their caring started and ended with the profit motive. They did nothing to establish proper care and responsibility for animal welfare. At the end of this Parliament, I do not want Labour Members who have loyally supported the Government to feel that they have been let down. I hope that the Labour Government have enough resolve and backbone to tackle animal welfare issues.
  With so much human talent around, we do not need to exploit animals for our entertainment. Circuses that include animals should become a thing of the past—a thing that people talk about, but are delighted to know no longer exist. The exportation of animals and cruelty in the rearing of animals should be high on the Government's agenda. As many hon. Members have said, it is high on the agenda of many of the people we represent.
  286
  I hope that today the message will go out that once again, the House of Commons has spoken on behalf of the overwhelming majority of British people, who believe that it is the right time for the Government to do the right thing, to get behind the public, and fight on animal welfare issues. If that means fighting through the courts of the world, we should do so.
  11.54 am
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: I shall make a short speech, because it is important that other hon. Members make some of their points, and that the Minister has time to respond.
  I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on obtaining this important debate. I wish to highlight one or two things, but first I want to set the debate in context. The issues on which we all receive most letters in our postbags are animal welfare and the social and environmental concerns that affect world trade.
  When I visit schools or meet children elsewhere, they say things like, "Why is it that we continue to export animals in this way? Why is it that we continue to rape the rain forests? Why do we continue to use child labour to produce footballs or carpets?" When they say that sort of thing, it challenges me as a Member of Parliament or, indeed, as an adult. It challenged me when I was a teacher. I say, "You have to understand that it is a complicated situation. It is difficult to deal with the problem. There are all sorts of laws and difficulties in understanding how trade organisations work. There is something called GATT, and something called the World Trade Organisation." They reply, "But it's cruel. It's not right."
  Such challenges from children to Parliament put the debate in context, and show that we really need to be judged by our actions. I sometimes feel that I am making excuses and explaining away something that it is difficult to explain away. I know that the Government are desperate to do something. Ministers do not believe in cruelty. They want to do something about it.
  The purpose of today's debate is to generate even more passion, more desire and more determination in the Government to take on people who use—let us be frank—the cloak of free trade and the liberalisation of trade to continue practices that we regard as barbaric. They do not do so because they want to improve the lot of the people they pretend to represent. They do not do so to increase the prosperity of ordinary people. They do it to protect the profit of individuals in those areas, and they want to continue the exploitation.
  None of us is opposed to trade. We all know that trade means prosperity. We do not want to pull up the ladder and say, "We are prosperous and well off, thank you very much. We don't want you to develop your industries." It is in that context that we need to discuss the issue.
  In the approaching WTO negotiations, it is important that we understand and accept the key argument that the way in which something is produced or made is an important consideration for this country. We want the right to determine whether products are allowed into this country. That requires fundamental changes to our trading arrangements.
  Free trade is one thing; the liberalisation of trade is another; but the exploitation of children, cruelty to animals and the rape of rain forests are something else

  287
  entirely. We have to ask ourselves some serious questions if we, as part of the civilised world and as a civilising influence on the world, are unable to sit down at the table and help to produce an agreement that protects the environment, supports decent labour standards for people in other countries and improves animal welfare standards, while simultaneously promoting prosperity and enhancing worldwide trade arrangements.
  When the children I meet ask me what the Government—not the Labour Government, or the Conservative Government, but our Government, and our Parliament—are doing to address those serious issues and to ensure that we no longer have to witness some of the scenes described by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, I want to be able to tell them that we are trying to achieve something better.
  12 noon
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I shall concentrate specifically on live animal exports. In a previous life, I spent almost 30 years in the Merchant Navy, sailing on ships to the far east and crossing the channel. I have seen some of the suffering close up; I have felt it and smelt it and I know what it is all about.
  The general agreement on tariffs and trade acts against our ability to ban live animal exports. Every year, about 500,000 animals are exported from the European Union to the middle east. We know about their suffering during the voyage and during their discharge at the end of the journey, in high temperatures and uncontrolled conditions. We know some of their suffering during the act of slaughter. It is beyond belief that the EU does not have the power to stop that evil trade.
  That trade takes place much closer to home: every week, many thousands of live animals are exported through my constituency of Dover. I pay tribute to the local animal welfare organisations—especially Kent Against Live Animal Exports, of which I am a member—which have picketed, day and night and in all weather, over the past two years to try to bring an end to the evil trade. Dover harbour board wants to stop the trade and has tried to do so; the mainstream—one might call them "legitimate"—ferry companies want to stop it; yet still the trade continues.
  The ordinary people who turn out, day and night, many without a political thought in their head other than the welfare of animals, cannot understand why our Government are unable to ban the trade. They cannot understand why the EU is unable to ban the trade from Europe to the middle east. They cannot understand why the free trade regulations completely ignore any principles of ethics or morality in their application.
  I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on having covered the subject in depth and on managing to mention the third way twice—now it has been mentioned for a third time. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take to the negotiations the message that there is an urgent need to inject morality, ethics and fairness into all future negotiations.
  12.3 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I speak as no supporter of free trade, and I take some comfort from the fact that the WTO does not believe in free trade either. The latest American research shows that at least 200
  288
  international cartels of major corporations are involved in global price fixing, but the WTO has absolutely nothing to say about that. The difference between my position and that of the WTO is that I believe that the next century will demand that we address two issues: one is the agenda for sustainable economics; the other is the need to establish responsible trade and production, rather than have a deregulated world economy that causes greater climate change and plunges us into climatic crisis.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take account of four principles in the negotiations on the revision of WTO rules in which the UK is to be involved. First, we have to make a commitment to honour the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in the Kyoto negotiations. We must ensure that environmental responsibility and sustainability take precedence over all forms of international treaty that would undermine our ability, both locally and globally, to meet environmental protection targets.
  Secondly, after the international triumph of organisations that scuppered the multilateral agreement on investment, which was secretly negotiated within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the UK must not entertain the notion of that being introduced into the WTO by the back door.
  Thirdly, we must enter the negotiations with the aim of questioning one of the key forms of protectionism written into WTO rules, which relates to intellectual property rights. The objections of countries in the developing world to the use of biotechnology patents to rape and pillage their genetic inheritance must be heeded. In India, half of the essential herbs that form the basis of ayurvedic medicine have been the subject of patent applications from European and US companies. We must restore the rights of self-development and sustainable development to the third world.
  Fourthly, we must extend the rights of consumers to demand protection from the introduction of genetically modified crops, for which there is no public demand and which are the subject of large-scale environmental, health and social concerns that have yet to be adequately answered.
  I ask that the UK's negotiating stance be based on the following commitments. Sustainability should take precedence over market deregulation. The precautionary principle, long established as the cornerstone of society's right to protection from adverse environmental and health consequences of new inventions, should take precedence over environmental exploitation. Democratic accountability should take precedence over the price mechanism. Finally, human, environmental and animal health should take precedence over the demands of corporate dividends and stakeholder demands. If we adopt such a stance, we shall be better able internationally to adhere to the amazing achievements of the Deputy Prime Minister in Kyoto, and to turn GATT into something with which the world can live, rather than something by which it will be destroyed.
  12.7 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on securing the debate. He has done the House a service in drawing attention to the increasing conflict between the globalised free market and the need for environmental

  289
  protection. I am sure that the debate will continue over the coming years and will be the main subject of political debate in the next century.
  The timing of today's debate is significant, given that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister published a document outlining the way in which the Government will deliver their Kyoto commitments; and that last week the French Government decided to withdraw their support from the multilateral agreement on investment. It is worth dwelling on those two points because, in two weeks' time, the Government will be pursuing the Kyoto agenda at the Buenos Aires conference. Securing an agreement between the demands of the United States, China and the developing world on the setting of emissions limits, while keeping the wheels of free trade turning, will not only require great political skill, but will again heighten the tension between free trade and environmental protection.
  On the subject of the MAI, I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 1700, which appears on today's Order Paper. I urge hon. Members to read it and sign it if they feel able to do so. Although the MAI was only a small part of the much wider GATT agenda, it was significant, reflecting the changing climate in thinking on globalisation. Increasingly, the thinking now—not only in the United Kingdom but abroad—is that we can no longer accept the orthodoxy that we have been asked to accept for the past 50 years. Environmental concerns are increasingly at the heart of worldwide economic debates.
  I want to ensure that the Minister has ample time to reply to the debate, so I shall conclude. However, I endorse the specific questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), which I hope that the Minister will be able to answer in detail.
  Today, we have discussed reform of the World Trade Organisation and its limitations in dealing with environmental matters. Perhaps a much bigger issue is the nature of the international institutions that have developed in recent years, and whether those organisations are capable of dealing with the new economic situation that we now face. I wonder whether the WTO, for example, can ever be reformed to deal fully with the sustainable development agenda, or whether—given that we have not only a World Health Organisation but a World Trade Organisation—we now need a world environment organisation.
  12.10 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: I, too, welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on the way in which he introduced it. I do not know whether he admitted to this, but I suspect that the debate was much inspired by a stimulating report by the RSPCA entitled "Conflict or Concord? Animal welfare and the World Trade Organisation", to which I shall refer later.
  We have had a wide-ranging debate, which included references to circuses and hunting. I shall concentrate my remarks on the main subject of the debate—world trade—and welcome the general support for free trade that has been apparent in hon. Members' speeches.
  290
  I should like to concentrate on one specific example, so that we might try to draw some lessons from it. I make no apology for referring, again, to the issue of the plight of the British pig industry.
  Pigmeat is the United Kingdom's most popular meat. Last year, consumers spent an estimated £5.9 billion on pigmeat—pork, bacon, ham and other pigmeat products—which represented almost 40 per cent. of all spending on meat and meat products. The previous, Conservative Government, with all-party support and support from consumers, introduced regulations that have given our pig industry the highest welfare standards in Europe and probably in the world. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was not prepared to give credit to the Conservative Government for the progress that they made on that matter.
  This morning, some hon. Members had the privilege of attending the pig industry's "Big Pig Breakfast". I was delighted that that gathering was attended by the Agriculture Minister, as a demonstration of his solidarity with farmers in their concerns. At the breakfast, a Scottish pig farmer—it is relevant that I should refer to him, as the Minister who will reply to this debate is a Scot through and through—made the important point that he is losing £23 pounds per pig. Those losses include about £4 per pig in additional welfare costs that he, unlike his competitors, must pay; £3 per pig to dispose of the meat and bonemeal that he is not allowed to feed back into his pigs, although farmers on the continent can do so; and £7 per pig because of the high value of the pound.
  There is a grave danger that, from 1 January 1999, when the new welfare regulations on stalls and tethers are fully implemented, the number of pigs reared under those improved conditions will fall. Pigs reared abroad to lower standards and at lower cost will be substituted for the premium British product, resulting in reduced market share for our own producers. All those who have campaigned, quite legitimately, for higher welfare standards in pig production will find, ironically, that fewer pigs are produced to those standards because of our unilaterally introducing the regulations. That is not what the House intended or what British consumers or farmers wanted. I ask the Minister what the Government will do about it.
  We should be able to differentiate our product and make consumers aware of, for example, the fact that only at 10 per cent. of Danish pig units are said to be free of stalls and tethers, and that as little as 2 per cent. of Dutch units are said to be free of stalls and tethers. If consumers are concerned about pigs produced in unpleasant and cruel conditions, they should not be buying Danish or Dutch pork products.
  The Opposition believe that there should be greater scope for informed consumer choice. However, as the regulations are very confusing, how can consumers receive the correct information? Although British pork is reared under the highest standards in the world, how can we know that British pork is really British produced? The pork from a pig that is produced and slaughtered on the continent and brought to the United Kingdom to be used in pork pies or sausages can be sold as British pork. Consumers may very well be under the illusion that animals from which that "British" pork came were reared according to the high welfare standards that we require of our own pig producers.

  291
  What will we do about that serious problem, which has been exacerbated by some European Union regulations? As so often in our debates, we learn that the EU stands between legislators and consumers. The Opposition wish to legislate to enable consumers to make an effective choice, but discover that regulations on protecting food names, which were introduced in 1993, seem effectively to be designed to undermine the status of nation states within Europe and to prevent products being labelled as, for example, "British pork". One cannot label a product as "British pork" and therefore imply that it has been produced to higher welfare standards.
  The RSPCA makes in its document some interesting points on the importance of labelling and letting consumers decide. I hope that the RSPCA, which is itself concerned about animal welfare, will help to promote British pork, and that, from the beginning of next year, it will say that buying and eating British pork will be promoting pork that has been produced to standards that are much higher than those of our European counterparts. If we let consumers have the information, I am sure that they will make the right decision. I hope that the RSPCA will join in the campaign to promote British pork.
  There is much concern also about the genetic modification of food, which the hon. Member for Dartford mentioned in passing. I recently saw a guide for consumers, entitled "Foodsense: genetic modification and food", produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On page 13, it states:
  "the Government is determined to ensure that all foods which may contain genetically modified material are clearly labelled. These would include foods which contain genetically modified products used as food ingredients such as GM soya, maize and tomato paste."
  That is all very well. However, on page 14, it states:
  "How will genetically modified food be labelled?
  Under the EC Novel Foods Regulation a genetically modified food will be labelled if it is judged, on the basis of a scientific assessment, not to be equivalent to an existing food. Foods will also require labelling if there are any ethical concerns or if it contains a genetically modified organism, even if it is equivalent to an existing food."
  That statement is not the same as saying that the consumer will be given the power to make an informed choice, because the information that foods are subject to genetic modification will be given only in certain circumstances.
  The document continues:
  "The Government"—
  rightly—
  "believes that all foods should be labelled so that consumers are made aware when they contain any genetically modified material. The UK will be pressing for this when foods are approved under the regulation."
  I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us today how he will secure that outcome for the British consumer.
  12.19 pm
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) for securing this debate and also to all the hon. Members who have participated and who have made constructive contributions. I include among them the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), although I could not help feeling that the "Big Pig Breakfast" came as a rather timely research source for his speech.
  292
  I undertake to get for him the information that he wants about the labelling of British pork, and labelling is a subject to which I shall return later.
  To be frank, I am grateful for the debate not least because I am new to my current responsibilities. I have never been one to pretend that there is a seamless transition of knowledge and wisdom that accompanies Ministers or, indeed, Opposition spokesmen from one job to another. I have been more than interested to hear the well-informed comments of hon. Members from all parties, who clearly bring to the debate long and distinguished backgrounds of interest and research in the subject.
  Perhaps more than in other debates, everyone who has spoken today shares the same objectives. In an ideal world, we should like everything that we imported and exported to be safe and humanely produced in an environmentally responsible manner by people who have been paid a fair rate for the job. I am sure that we could all unite around that wish. It certainly contains a very laudable set of aspirations. The problem begins of course with the fact that every word in the mission statement—to use a terrible phrase—that I have just set out is open to endless discussion about definitions. That is what makes the subject genuinely complex.
  The calls for action may be perfectly reasonable on the surface. Indeed, from the perspective of a sophisticated, developed economy, they might seem like modest environmental prerequisites for trade; but exactly the same call for action, viewed from the perspective of a developing country, might well appear as no more or less than crafty rich-world protectionism.
  It is not necessary to be a free trade ideologue—to paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford—to recognise the very real pitfalls that may quickly appear if we introduce sanctions against products of which we do not like the look or the smell. As my hon. Friend and others recognised, the argument falls overwhelmingly in favour of liberal trade policies. In principle, no hon. Member supports the opposite, as protectionism inhibits liberal trade. I think that I can include among those hon. Members my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). He fairly points out that cartels exist, but I do not think that he adduces that fact as a reason for believing that cartels should exist. It is a perfectly reasonable argument for pointing out that rhetoric does not always match reality. I do not think that my hon. Friend would dissent from the view that, if rules are fairly applied and set, a liberal trade world is a much better proposition than a restrictive one.
  As many hon. Members have said, the debate is not about absolute principle but is a matter of balance. Again, everyone agrees that trade is not the ideal or the primary instrument through which social or environmental objectives, however desirable, should be pursued. That takes us back to the question of balance and the identification of spheres in which it is appropriate to limit trade, as that is the only apparent way of achieving the desired objectives. I assure the House that it is a highly legitimate area of debate, which I have a genuine interest in exploring.
  It is in all our interests to get the answers right from a United Kingdom perspective so that we have a trade policy that is both consistent with the principles that we pursue and that is sensitive to the concerns that have been

  293
  expressed today. I in no way underestimate the difficulty of getting that balance right. In the rhetorical flourish at the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) urged us to have enough backbone to tackle those issues. That is fine, but the first example that he adduced of where we—I presume that he meant me—should have backbone involved performing animals in circuses. My responsibilities are wide, but I am not sure that the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred is one for the World Trade Organisation.
  There are some topics for which I want to put down markers of agreement. For example, the call for greater openness and transparency in the WTO is one with which I readily agree. There has been growing recognition of the need for greater dialogue with the general public and non-governmental organisations about the principles that underlie trade liberalisation and the multilateral trading system operated by the WTO. It has to be explained why they are advantageous for developed countries as well as less developed countries and for jobs, growth and prosperity. All dialogue on such matters should be conducted openly.
  In that context, we can welcome measures taken by the WTO to be more open. They include the de-restriction of documents, the use of the internet and so on. They show a welcome desire on the part of the WTO to be more open, but I do not believe that the process has gone far enough. We can play a leading role in urging greater transparency within the WTO.
  One point on which I can perhaps bring some optimism among hon. Members who have spoken today is the shrimp-turtle case. The appellate body has come out not against the measure, but only against the way in which the United States chooses to pursue it. I shall not, as one hon. Member requested, give the Government's definitive position on that issue today. Because of its importance, it may become the definitive trade and environmental case study in terms of WTO jurisprudence. We have to consider it carefully and discuss it circumspectly until a position emerges. It is an example of a case being pursued by a wide range of opinion and countries, and the WTO
  294
  has not categorically come out against the action taken. We have to consider the implication of the appellant body's ruling.
  It is for the same reason that I cannot say too much about the Canadian asbestos case, although I wholly agree that it is interesting and highly relevant to the way in which the WTO discharges its functions. It is, of course, subject to appeal by the Canadians. Again, it will have a marked impact on perceptions of how the WTO approaches such matters.
  Another matter on which we can find agreement and on which I can offer something to hon. Members who have spoken today is the UK's role in taking forward those issues within the European Union and the WTO. We are actively encouraging a high-level meeting on trade and the environment. The EU's proposal to that effect is now being considered by our partners in the WTO. In order to make progress, we obviously have to agree an agenda that will attract wide support and involvement.
  Mr. Baker: We are running out of time. The Minister was asked some specific questions—I counted about 10— which he will not have time to answer. He was open about being on a steep learning curve, so will he undertake to write to hon. Members with the answers that they seek?
  Mr. Wilson: I have no difficulty in giving the hon. Gentleman that absolute assurance. It is much more useful to write to hon. Members than to gabble through the replies in front of me. I have every intention of trying to address the concerns.
  I believe that broad philosophical agreement exists on the problem. The objectives are not in doubt. For instance, there is consensus that the best way to tackle labour standard issues is through the International Labour Organisation. If we tried through the World Trade Organisation to create a framework of labour rules for developing countries, the subject would hardly get on to the agenda, far less have a prospect of early success. If we are to make progress, it is important to be much more specific in defining those aspects that are within the WTO's remit—that is, within trade. In the case of issues that are not, we should consider whether another avenue exists.
  This interesting debate will continue. I assure hon. Members that I shall take a close interest in the matter.

  Black Watch
  12.30 pm
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this important national and constituency issue on the Floor of the House. With the Minister's agreement, I shall restrict my comments to allow my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) to speak.
  The Black Watch Territorial Army Battalion, which has its headquarters in Perth and which recruits widely throughout Perthshire, Angus and Fife, is the volunteer arm of one of the most distinguished regiments in our armed forces. I understand that it was raised in 1746, so it is also one of the oldest. The House may recall that the Black Watch regulars were the regiment that oversaw the lowering of the union jack over Hong Kong last year. It is my hope, of course, that the regiment and its full complement of volunteers will be present at the raising of the saltire at the independence ceremonies for Scotland in a few years' time.
  Hon. Members will be aware of the broad thrust of the proposals for the Territorial Army throughout the United Kingdom and in Scotland—a cut of some 30 per cent. across the UK, but, I am informed, a fall of some 47 per cent. in the highlands. However, we have been left in the dark about the impact on individual TA battalions and companies.
  Before the recess, the Government assured the House that consultation on future TA deployment would take place over the summer, and that an announcement would be made in the autumn. That announcement, as I understand it, has been delayed. My information is that we are unlikely to hear the fate of our individual TA units until December. That is an appalling way to treat the volunteers. Will the Minister please explain the reasons for the delay? One conclusion is that it is intended to delay the news until just before Christmas, in the hope that the bad news will be swamped by the seasonal preparations.
  If the Minister departs from his prepared response in only one area today, I hope that he will do so to answer the following questions. Has he personally seen the Army's recommendations on the TA? Does his Department have a copy of those recommendations? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, when did he or his Department receive the recommendations? What is the reason for any delay in the final announcement? Can he today give us a date for the publication of the final details of the TA cuts? Over the past few days, I have spoken to many members of the Territorial Army at every level. They, too, have asked those questions, and it is insulting to them that the Government are not coming clean with the proposals right now.
  What is most demeaning, and what has caused almost 300 volunteers in the highlands to leave the TA over the summer, is the fact that the likely outcome of the so-called review seems clear. Those men know that their battalions are facing large cuts and loss of identity, so there is little incentive for them to remain in them.
  It appears that, in my area, the Black Watch will be merged with the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders TA and the Highlanders TA, with the Black Watch reduced to one company and the others possibly escaping with two
  296
  each. The Black Watch cap badges will remain, the red hackles may still be there, but, when that cap badge covers a company of as few as 100 men, that can be seen as little more than a sop.
  In my area, it is hoped that Perth itself will retain the battalion headquarters, but information suggests that it is likely that the Black Watch TA presence will go from Forfar and Kirkcaldy—two of the most modern TA centres in the country. That at Forfar opened as recently as this year, at a cost of £800,000, and that at Kirkcaldy was renovated three years ago, at a cost of more than £2 million. If Kirkcaldy goes, it will be an end to the infantry presence in Fife. I do not consider that a saving; it seems more like a scandalous waste.
  Overall, the Black Watch TA is bracing itself for a cut of some 69 per cent. in its complement—a loss of some 150 men. In 1995, the Black Watch alone of the highland regiments had its complement cut. Perhaps the Minister will explain why it seems to have been singled out for such draconian measures.
  The current cuts are reflected elsewhere in Scotland and the UK. Obviously, I cannot stray too far from the subject of the debate, but hon. Members will appreciate that my comments on the Black Watch are intended as an illustration of a wider problem. This is not only a plea for the Government to change their mind on the Black Watch, but for them to rethink the whole review of the TA and to ensure that Scotland maintains a minimum complement of 7,000 volunteers.
  The Minister is likely to argue that times have changed, and that volunteers do not play the role that they used to in our national defence. He may wax lyrical about the potency of Trident, rapid deployment forces and large aircraft carriers in allowing the UK to project its supposed might worldwide, but in my view such arguments are akin to a mid-life crisis, bringing to mind the man who craves the roar of a Ferrari when he needs a good four-wheel drive vehicle. This analysis does not take into account the real impact and importance of the Black Watch and the other TA battalions.
  The Minister must consider two points. First, it is clear from the strategic defence review that the role of the armed forces has switched more heavily toward rapid deployment overseas and away from defence of the home territory. That is a strategic judgment, but in so reconfiguring the regulars he has left a role for the volunteers—home defence—which should mean keeping the TA units at current strength instead of slashing them. The Black Watch and the other battalions are the framework around which a home defence force can be raised. The Government's proposals threaten to turn that framework into a skeleton. That is not only my view, but that of senior members of the TA, to whom I have spoken in recent days and weeks.
  Secondly, the Ministry of Defence recognises that the Territorial Army will play an increasing role, alongside the regulars, in some overseas deployments. I believe that about 10 per cent. of current UK forces in Bosnia are volunteers, providing additional skills to complement the regulars. Obviously, if the TA is cut, the burden of those duties will fall on a smaller number of increasingly demoralised volunteers. Is the Minister confident that the cream of the TA battalions will remain in service when their battalion identities are destroyed, and when recruitment areas are being cut? In the Black Watch area,

  297
  the cuts will effectively mean freezing out Fife and Angus. Is the Minister confident that employers will be happy to see their staff called away increasingly often and bearing the additional burdens imposed by the cuts? Is he confident that he can find 1,500 volunteers for Bosnia from a pool of 40,000 men, when I am told that it is difficult enough to do so from a pool of 60,000?
  The Territorial Army is, by its very name, a territorial body. Has the Minister forgotten that Scotland covers more than a quarter of the UK land mass? Surely there is an unanswerable case for that land mass, and the highlands in particular, to retain territorial units. There is no reason why the Black Watch should suffer a cut of twice the UK average. There must be a rethink on the deployment of volunteer engineers in Scotland. Although that matter is not directly related to the Black Watch, I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has been pressing for the retention of the two units in her constituency. Recent floods across the country should serve as reminder enough of the role that such units can play in such community and natural disasters. When the River Tay flooded in Perth in the early 1990s, the local infantry TA made a major contribution.
  Finally, I want the Minister to consider the impact of the proposed cuts on my area and on communities throughout the country. It has been estimated that the economic loss throughout the UK from the slashing of 20,000 volunteers will be some £50 million. In Perthshire, Angus and Fife, the cuts could result in as much as £400,000 being removed from the local economies. They will result in fewer opportunities for young people in the towns most likely to lose their TA centres. They will impact on the recruitment of Army cadets. The two battalions of cadets in the Black Watch area will undoubtedly be affected by a loss of more than 60 per cent. in the manpower of their main source of military support. Given that much Regular Army recruitment comes from those serving in the TA, we may find an even bigger recruitment problem a few years down the line.
  The Territorial Army takes up a mere 2 per cent. of the UK defence budget. That 2 per cent. provides a skills base for the regular forces, a pool of troops for overseas deployment, a link with local communities and a framework for home defence. That is money well spent, when other parts of the defence budget are being wasted on resources such as the unusable Trident nuclear system.
  My plea to the Minister is to take heed of his short-sighted TA cuts in the Black Watch and the other volunteer battalions and invest in the backbone of our national defence, not in the grandiose delusions of nuclear power.
  12.39 pm
  Mr. John Swinney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) on securing this debate and thank her for allowing me to make a brief contribution on my constituency interest.
  I am concerned about the rumoured cuts in the strength of the Black Watch and the likelihood that the exercise will result in a 69 per cent. cut in numbers. My constituency interest relates to securing the future of the Strathmore TA centre at Forfar, where the anti-tank
  298
  platoon of the third volunteer battalion of the Black Watch is based. The new centre, in Castle street, Forfar, was opened by the Earl of Airlie, the Lord Lieutenant of Angus, in April 1998, following an investment of nearly £800,000 in refurbishment. The premises have several attributes unique to the presence of an anti-tank platoon, notably the weapons store. Closing that centre would be short sighted, resulting in the loss of the investment made in those unique facilities.
  When I visited the centre last Friday, I heard some cautious optimism about its future, but that contradicts the reports leaked earlier in the year suggesting that it was to be closed. Will the Minister settle that speculation today?
  However, that is not the end of my concerns. I am acutely worried about the impact in my constituency, but there is also grave unease in the wider area of Fife and Tayside about the implications of the proposed cuts and how they might affect centres in Kirkcaldy, Dundee and Perth. Existing personnel have given great commitment to the Territorial Army. As a result of the proposals, they will simply be told that their commitment has been in vain. We do not want to lose that commitment and those resources.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Perth referred to the important role of the Territorial Army in contributing to the local economy. I want to stress that strongly. There are implications for remuneration in the local economy and purchasing power in the Angus area.
  The Territorial Army has an important role in recruitment at local level for the Regular Army. The traditional recruiting areas of the Black Watch in Angus, Dundee, Fife and Perthshire are closely associated with the regiment. There is a danger of the Government's proposals destroying that vital local link. I hope that the Minister will reassure us today about the regiment and my constituency interests.
  12.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) on securing a debate on the potential implications of reductions in the Territorial Army on the third battalion of the Black Watch, which has its headquarters in her constituency. She alluded to the creation of an independent Scotland, but did not say how she would pay for the TA while setting up a separate Army, Navy and Air Force for Scotland. Her sneering references to a mid-life crisis made clear her contempt for our armed services. However, despite her tone, she made some arguments that should be dealt with.
  The debate is about the potential implications—I say potential only because no decisions have been taken. Indeed, no proposals have yet been put to Ministers. The Government fully appreciate that this is a period of uncertainty for those in the TA in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. We are keen to make an announcement as soon as possible. The hon. Lady asked me to depart from my prepared response, which says that she would be the first to criticise us if we did not consult carefully all those concerned before reaching our decision. That is what we are doing and why we do not have a final response. The issues have not been decided before consultations with the Territorial Army have been completed. If we came with a prepared response while the consultation was still under way, the instant accusation in the Chamber would be that the consultations were a meaningless smokescreen.

  299
  We deplore the way in which internal consultation documents were leaked and then presented as Government proposals. As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces told the House last week—and will no doubt say again in this afternoon's debate on the Army—the Government will return to the House with a statement when a decision has been made. We shall try to do that as soon as possible, after giving proper consideration to all the responses.
  The hon. Member for Perth rightly drew attention to the long and distinguished history of the Black Watch, Scotland's senior highland regiment. The Highland Regiment of Foot was formed in 1740 and was known from the beginning as the Black Watch—derived, I understand, from the colour of the tartan and the original task of the companies in keeping watch over the highlands in the aftermath of the Jacobite rising. The regiment now contains one territorial battalion, with a headquarters at Queens barracks in Perth. The battalion has two companies, in Dundee and Kirkcaldy, with a platoon based in Forfar. The Government fully understand the important role that the Black Watch plays in the local community, which the hon. Members for Perth and for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) have articulated so forcefully.
  When considering the potential implications of the reduction in size of the Territorial Army on battalions such as the Black Watch, and how best to minimise the negative impacts for any units that have to close, the Government have a responsibility to bear in mind the full implications of not making the changes. In short, as we said in the strategic defence review, we are looking to the future, not the past.
  The current structure of the Territorial Army is based on cold war planning for defence in the event of a major Warsaw pact invasion of western Europe. That role is no longer realistic or credible and the TA must adapt to the new world. The structure is based on the role of territorial defence, particularly of key strategic installations, in the event of a major conflict in central Europe and the need to backfill into such a conflict. That is no longer part of the Ministry of Defence's strategic planning. We must ensure that the TA remains relevant and usable in the current strategic reality and that it is an integral part of the defence capability that the strategic defence review, following wide consultation in the services and beyond, has sought to identify. The TA can no longer have a structure based on the need to meet the threat of general war in Europe—a threat that no longer exists in the short or medium term. It is wasteful and demoralising to maintain forces for a non-existent role. That is why change is required.
  We want a Territorial Army that is more fully integrated into the Regular Army and structured to meet today's security concerns. We seek a TA that is properly resourced, and provides career development and educational opportunities for those who wish to volunteer and to serve. We seek a Territorial Army that is trained to operate key battle-winning equipment, such as Challenger, AS90, the multiple-launch rocket system and Rapier, and which offers skills that can be of benefit in civilian employment both to the individual and their employers.
  As part of the approach, we shall look to make greater use of the TA for the conduct of military operations than we have in the past. As was made clear in the strategic
  300
  defence review, we need to be prepared to mobilise the TA more frequently. We did not compulsorily call it out for the Gulf war, but plan to do so for future operations of that scale. In seeking to strike the appropriate balance between the size of our regular forces and that of our reserves, however, we must take into account that, with few exceptions, we cannot expect our reserve forces to undertake operations at short notice or meet on-going day-to-day commitments. The hon. Member for Perth mentioned that greater use of the TA would not be attractive to employers. We know from discussions with employers that the greater level of training that will be provided will be attractive to them.
  For the TA as a whole, therefore, the change in its character and role is important and good news. Instead of large numbers of forces planning and training to meet the implausible threat of an imminent strategic attack on the United Kingdom or our NATO allies, we see a force that will contribute to our ability to project military power abroad. The challenge is to prevent the Territorial Army becoming a symbol of the cold war, with no place in the new strategic setting.
  The Government are keenly aware of the importance of maintaining the link between the Army—indeed, all the services—and the wider civilian population. That link has been fostered both nationally and locally by the presence of TA units in the community—not least by their support of local cadet forces, to which both the hon. Members for Perth and for North Tayside referred. The training that TA units offer, the values that they instil and the support that they provide in times of civilian crises are all vital functions.
  In seeking to introduce such an important change, we are carefully considering all the issues—including those raised by the hon Lady and the hon. Gentleman in this debate. We hope to preserve as wide a presence as possible of the TA—as well as the other voluntary services in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, which I regret are sometimes forgotten in these debates—throughout the country. To assist us in reaching decisions, we have consulted widely on how the changes should be implemented. In particular, the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association, which has important local knowledge, has been fully involved.
  It is tribute to the geographical coverage of the Territorial Army that there is a TA centre in the majority of constituencies. That understandably and rightly accounts for the interest that so many hon. Members take in plans for the TA and prospects for their local units, which are an important part of their communities. As well as ensuring that military requirements are met, it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that, as far as possible, the geographical spread should continue, and that all those who wish to offer their services are able to do so.
  The geographical footprint of the services is one of the important criterion in evaluation of the proposals. As a result of the Secretary of State's announcement only last week, we have of course increased the visibility of the services in the community by allowing our forces to wear uniforms in their local areas. That is very important. We recognise the TA as a further important part in such visibility, and will consider it in our decisions.

  301
  If we are to be successful in implementing the change that is so important, some TA units will have to close or change role. For the reasons that I have given, we can not perpetuate the status quo, nor has there been a realistic argument that the TA should stay as it is.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell indicated dissent.
  Mr. Spellar: That is so, even when individuals have argued points of detail.
  The hon. Members for Perth and for North Tayside raised the question of cadets. Of particular importance, and a further criterion in our evaluation of particular sites, is the support often provided to local cadet forces by TA centres, such as the one in Perth. The cadets of all three services represent an important national youth movement. Although some will be affected by the planned changes in Territorial Army centres, we aim to minimise disruption wherever possible. Indeed, we are looking to increase the direct financial support that we offer them.
  The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) indicated that he thought that there was a realistic argument for the TA to stay as it is.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell indicated dissent.
  Mr. Spellar: He denies that. I am pleased to have his agreement, in the spirit of constructive opposition.
  The hon. Member for Perth referred to the percentage of reserves and cadets who provide recruits to the armed forces. I understand that 25 per cent. of Regular Army recruit—officers and soldiers alike—have Army cadet experience. About 8 per cent. have TA experience.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will make clear in the debate later today, recruitment to the Army has much improved under this Government.
  302
  We do not believe that our proposals for the TA will affect that to any significant degree. We recognise that the changes envisaged will have an impact on many members of the TA, including those whose units will not be closing, as well as all those who have contact with it. We are working hard to provide a sensitive package of measures for volunteers who leave the TA, and hope to be able to announce more about that later in the year.
  Several other opportunities will be made available for volunteers who are unable to continue serving with the TA. Those will include service with the Regular Army, membership of the Royal Naval Reserve, or the Royal Air Force Reserve, and posts as officers or instructors with the cadets. In the event that suitable vacancies arise, the volunteers will of course have the opportunity to rejoin the TA. There will also be provisions concerning travel allowances. We recognise the geographical problems in Scotland to which the hon. Member for Perth drew attention. The hon. Lady also referred to Trident. Given the Scottish National party's opposition to Trident, it is slightly ironic that it campaigns vigorously on where Trident submarines should be refitted. Perhaps that is a further example of the SNP's inconsistency.
  The implementation of changes in the TA will be difficult, but it important that we have a modern, relevant and usable Territorial Army which is fully integrated into the Regular Army and has much to offer those who wish to volunteer and serve, but are not able to serve full time.
  The hon Member for Perth has drawn attention to the potential implications for the TA unit of the Black Watch in her constituency. I assure her that those and the many other representations that we have received from hon. Members and those involved with the TA will be taken into account in the decisions that Ministers will be taking over the next few weeks on its structure and our investment in the future of a strong, relevant and usable Territorial Army.

  Pay-per-view Television
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Brian White: It may seem strange to introduce what may be thought of as a rather marginal debate, but I believe that its subject will grow in importance, and that we shall come back to it.
  Last week, at the all-party group on cricket, Tim Lamb, chief executive of the Test and County Cricket Board, said that the awarding of the contract for broadcasting cricket to Channel 4 might be the last such negotiation between broadcasters and sports bodies.
  As pay-per-view and digital television grow, there will be a complete change in the way in which not only sports coverage but other coverage is negotiated. As David Elstein, former director of programmes for Sky, said, in 10 to 15 years' time, when pay-per-view is fully developed, we shall be paying for each individual programme. I am not sure that that is the way in which we should be developing. Is that really what we want?
  At the moment, the scope of pay-per-view is limited by economics—how to make it pay—and technology, but, with the convergence of technology, it will spread. It is estimated that 10 million homes will have digital television in the next 10 to 15 years. As shown by the Select Committee report on the convergence of technologies and the Government's response to it, which I welcome, the debate will be more important in future.
  Companies are now looking at ways of broadcasting visual images along old-fashioned copper wire—the old telephone links—so the ways of distributing visual images will change. It is not only television that will be affected. I have heard one person say that there will soon be pay-per-listen radio. All the hottest and latest releases—not that I can remember them—will be on pay-per-listen radio, and the rest of us will have to wait a few weeks or months to hear them.
  There is great uncertainty about the way in which technology in general, including pay-per-view, will develop. I shall concentrate on football today, but what I say applies to other sports and other types of television too. The Office of Fair Trading is now investigating the deal between the Football Association and Sky Television, alleging that a cartel operates, and that each club should negotiate individually. I cannot understand how a cartel can be operating when 31 clubs have appeared in the Premier League over the past six years.
  If we take that idea seriously, however, and the Office of Fair Trading gets its way and clubs start negotiating individually, a series of questions will arise. What happens if clubs negotiate with different broadcasters operating different systems, with one on pay-per-view, one on digital and another on terrestrial television? When will sport be televised, and will pay-per-view get the premier slots? If we take that to its logical conclusion—
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does my hon. Friend share my opinion that pay-per-view is just one aspect of the growing concern among football supporters about the commercial exploitation of their game? Does he agree that pay-per-view is one element of the increasing commercialisation of sport, and of football in particular, that the football task force must address?
  Mr. White: I certainly agree that the football task force should address that question. It is interesting that, in Italy,
  304
  where the four top clubs have renegotiated their contracts to obtain a higher percentage of the revenue, that has led to a widening of the gap between those clubs and others. I fear that, were that arrangement to be replicated in England, we would see the same phenomenon. Lower division clubs are already struggling, and that would exacerbate the situation.
  I shall not dwell upon the proposed BSkyB takeover of Manchester United, but it raises many questions about pay-per-view. The Sky contract ends in 2001, and I suspect that much of the background to the Sky takeover is connected with the fact that it wants a place at the negotiating table then. It is conceivable that Sky would have been outside the negotiations on multimedia promotions and suggestions for a European super-league, but the purchase of Manchester United will give it a place at the table.
  Pay-per-view for the top clubs in Europe would lead to a diminution of choice. As I have said, some Italian clubs have negotiated their contracts. Italy and a couple of other countries are further down the road than Britain in terms of digital and pay-per-view television. Before pay-per-view becomes fully established in this country, we should look at the effect that it has had in other countries.
  In Italy, for example, supporters of a club can subscribe to pay-per-view and get all the away matches, but one cannot switch teams. Ordinary football supporters who are not avid fans of a particular club cannot mix and match; they are tied to one club. That limits choice.
  I do not oppose pay-per-view television, but I want it to add to choice. As I have already said, the primary reason why pay-per-view has not yet taken off is economic—the problem of making it pay. If it is to make money—and there is no other reason why companies should introduce it—it has to take the market away from current broadcasters.
  There are already 16 live football matches available, and if the Nationwide league suggests setting up a few extra pay-per-view matches later this year—that is, if pay-per-view is additional to what is already available—I do not oppose it. For my sins, I am a Tottenham supporter—somebody has to suffer. If I want to watch Tottenham, I can watch the team live on a Saturday afternoon, or if I am lucky and the live match is on Sky, I can watch it at home. If neither of those options was possible, and pay-per-view was available in addition, that would be a reasonable way to progress. It would make for additional choice.
  However, if, on the contrary, pay-per-view replaced the live broadcasting, or, worse, if the time of the match were changed and moved from Saturday afternoon, when I can get there, to a prime slot at 4 o'clock on Sunday, say, when I cannot, that would lead to less choice.
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: I do not share all my hon. Friend's views on pay-per-view. However, I am not sure whether digital television will work commercially. We already have pay-per-view pop concerts on the internet, and it is not clear how regulation in the United Kingdom would affect regulation of the internet.
  Secondly, I hold shares in Charlton Athletic on behalf of my son Jack, and I would happily pay for a season ticket to watch all the away games, because I cannot travel

  305
  to see them. That would give me more choice. If there is a concern about cash, with digital television as with the American National Football League, for example, screens can be blacked within 60 miles of a game, so takings will not be affected. Has my hon. Friend considered that?
  Mr. White: My hon. Friend has obviously read my speech, because I was about to make that point. He is right to say that, in the United States, NFL games are not allowed to be shown live unless the ground is full. There are also deals whereby merchandising and television rights are shared between clubs. Pay-per-view would therefore be an additional choice there.
  If you wanted to watch Charlton, that would be reasonable as an additional choice. My fear is that the economics of pay-per-view would mean that, although you might get your way on that issue, the choice for everybody else would be diminished. That is the kind of regulation that I am looking for. You also mentioned—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in using the second person, he is referring to me. If he is talking to his hon. Friend, he should use the third person.
  Mr. White: Apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the internet. One reason why I introduced the debate is that the converging technologies mean that the traditional way of broadcasting programmes is changing. I am not opposed to pay-per-view on the internet or television, but I want a level playing field so that pay-per-view can compete with the internet, terrestrial television and digital television.
  Pay-per-view is not only about sport—it also relates to films, although it is probably too late to stop the rot for films. However, a number of social questions need to be raised. The proponents of pay-per-view have said that paying for films is just like going to the video shop. I am concerned that, if pay-per-view becomes the norm and video shops go out of business, people who do not have access to pay-per-view and cannot afford it will suffer. There are suggestions that, in those areas where pay-per-view is available—some cable companies have been running it for about six months—people are choosing five or six movies a month, and their habits are becoming quite regular. That may be true for some, but others might not be able to afford it. We must get the balance right.
  There is also the question of what happens in clubs and pubs showing sport or films. If pay-per-view becomes the norm, the deals that pubs and clubs have at the moment might become much more difficult to sustain.
  I have referred to the principal reasons why pay-per-view is not prevalent in sports broadcasting at the moment. However, there is one exception—boxing. I am not a boxing fan, but ITV used to have a good Saturday night fight programme. Now the only place one can see a decent boxing match is on pay-per-view. Sky subscribers who pay £30 or £40 a month for the full package will have to pay £10 extra to watch McCullough beat Naseem on Saturday night.
  When I became involved in the debate, I was happy to say, "Let's ban all pay-per-view television, because it is absolutely disgraceful." However, I was quickly brought
  306
  up by my researcher, who said, "Hang on, I like watching pay-per-view. I am quite prepared to pay extra for a film or sports match. I don't want the whole package—I want the additional choice." That emphasises the point I am trying to make. If it is a question of additionality, pay-per-view is reasonable.
  If the economics of pay-per-view means that the existing broadcasters of sport and films lose—if all we are left with is a 10-minute highlights programme—there will be a problem, and the quality of broadcasting that we have become used to in this country will be diminished. It is easy to destroy what we have, but it is hard to rebuild it. If pay-per-view destroys some of our broadcasting quality, I would hesitate to say that we could get back to where we are now.
  Before we go much further, we need to debate the appropriate level for pay-per-view, and its regulation. We must discuss the content versus the technology. If we do not regulate, we could end up in an anti-competitive position, and we would all lose. If we get it right—and if pay-per-view is competitive and adds choice—the new technologies will give their full benefit. However, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the Select Committee report, and to ensure that, when new technologies are discussed, the question of regulation is brought up.
  1.13 pm
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) on securing a debate on pay-per-view television, and on setting out his views with such clarity. He speaks with some authority on the issue, as I understand that 40 per cent. of people in Milton Keynes are already on line—a figure far in advance of other areas.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) also contributed to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West rightly pointed out his concerns about the increasing commercialisation in sport, and the need for the football task force to look at that matter. I can assure him that I will pass on his comments to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, who will take them on board.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey spoke with great authority on the issue. He referred to regulation of the internet and how that might be achieved, and he mentioned the situation in the United States. He eloquently set out some of the important issues that we will face in the future.
  This subject is of interest to many hon. Members, and many people outside. In discussing the matter, we should remember that pay-per-view is not only relevant to sport—other pay services, including films, could well be vital in television's digital future. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East referred to that. However, he is particularly concerned with sports broadcasting.
  The Government's main concern in sports broadcasting is to ensure that everyone has access to those events which have a clear national resonance, and we have recently reviewed the protected list to achieve just that. Having said that, we do not believe that our responsibilities to viewers end there. Our public service broadcasters have a

  307
  responsibility to provide programming for all tastes and interests, and sport should clearly be part of what they offer. We will continue to monitor the position as the television market develops.
  The shape of that market is starting to become clear. Digital satellite broadcasting has already begun, and digital terrestrial will follow shortly. Viewers will have a wider choice of channels than ever before. Those services may well include specialist sports channels, and pay-per-view may be one way for broadcasters to fund these new services for the committed sports viewer.
  Pay-per-view may also bring benefits to sport, with new services covering events which broadcasters would not be able to transmit on a general channel, because of the costs of coverage or the small size of the likely audience. I shall return to that point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is concerned—he is not alone—about the possible consequences of BSkyB's takeover of Manchester United. He feels that this may lead to United's fans being asked to pay for access to coverage of the club's matches in the premier league after 2001. I can assure him that his concern on that point has been noted.
  As the House is aware, the Director General of Fair Trading is presently considering his recommendation on the merger to the Secretary of State. He will announce his conclusions before 2 November. It is right that the Office of Fair Trading should be left to make an independent assessment of the issues involved, and the Government should not speculate on the outcome at this time.
  My hon. Friend also noted that the restrictive practices court is considering the validity of the premier league's collective broadcasting arrangements early next year. He will understand that I cannot comment in detail on that for the same reasons. However, it is clear that the shape of the market for the rights to top league football may be very different come the spring. Given those uncertainties, we need to come to a balanced view on the subject of pay-per-view services for all sports—not just for football.
  Pay-per-view sports services in this country are in their infancy, and have so far been confined to boxing matches. There has been much talk about pay-per-view in other sports, but it seems that the industry is still not sure about who will watch them, and how much they will be prepared to pay.
  I believe that broadcasters and sporting bodies are right to be cautious. The issues involved in pay-per-view are complicated. It is not enough for a broadcaster to identify a potential audience for an event. Sport is an equal partner in any contract, and it must find a balance among a number of considerations—the need for wide exposure of flagship events, the impact of television coverage on attendances at grounds, to which my hon. Friend referred, and the requirements of sponsors and advertisers.
  All sports wish to stay in the public eye, not least to encourage the interest and participation of young viewers. I speak with some authority on that—I have three teenage children who are fanatical Blackburn Rovers fans. Sponsoring companies often demand the exposure that only free-to-air television can bring. As a result, many sports organisations, including the International Olympic Committee and UEFA, have publicly committed themselves to free-to-air coverage.
  308
  For example, the governing body for the formula one championship has also indicated its preference for free-to-air coverage. That is despite surveys that suggest that a substantial number of viewers in the UK would be prepared to pay to watch grand prix races.
  Sport must also guard against eating into its own audiences by rushing into pay-per-view. Football still takes the largest part of its income through the turnstile, and it must guard against alienating the fans who make the effort to attend matches.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, football must consider the lessons learned by overseas leagues. He mentioned Italy. When the Italian football league embraced pay-per-view, its attendances fell by more than the number of viewers watching the games on television. I am sure that my hon. friend the Minister for Sport would put that down to the decreasing appeal of the Italian league compared to those of other nations, such as our own premiership—much of Italy's national team now plays here, after all. British football must be careful, and the Government are sure that the point is not lost on those deciding future broadcasting contracts.
  Broadcasters themselves acknowledge the complexities of pay-per-view. BSkyB decided against charging viewers to watch a specially arranged snooker tournament earlier this year. Although top snooker players have great appeal for viewers, BSkyB and other broadcasters realise that people want to watch meaningful and established championship events. In making arrangements for their flagship events, sports bodies usually want a balance between revenues and maximum exposure.
  The tendency to self-regulation in the broadcasting market is reassuring, but we should recognise that there is a market for pay viewing of certain sports events, and that pay-per-view can bring benefits both to sport and to the armchair fan.
  Mr. Wyatt: My hon. Friend may be interested in a number of other pay-per-view events—the Spice Girls were on BSkyB. However, I am more concerned with the launch of the digital channel, Film Four. If the Hollywood moguls decide to launch a film on pay-per-view ahead of its theatrical release, it will seriously affect the economics of television and of the multiplexes that are being built throughout the world. Given that Sony produce wide-screen computer screens and television sets, one can envisage which way it will go with its films. I would welcome my hon. Friend's comments on that.
  Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right, and I am sure that he would agree that, throughout the world, we are embarking on a broadcasting revolution. We will have to wait and see how it develops. I am sure that his concern about the likely effect on theatrical productions is well founded. We shall have to guard against that, and I thank him for raising the issue.
  Matches shown on pay terms will be additional to the 60 games a year shown by BSkyB. The league believes that coverage of those matches will reach a new audience of football fans committed to—dare I say it—less fashionable clubs. Those fans may be unable to travel around the country to follow their teams' away matches. Of course, there are fans who, for one reason or another, cannot get to matches at all. Many of those matches would not be shown on BSkyB's general subscription service—

  309
  or anywhere else, come to that—because the potential audience is small. Pay-per-view may have the potential to bring a new choice of services to football supporters, and there is no reason why that should not apply equally to fans of other sports.
  We have to consider the position of top sports events, especially in football, which will, at least initially, attract broadcasters and sports bodies wishing to experiment with pay-per-view. Listing offers a good level of protection for free-to-air access to the very top occasions in the sport, such as the world cup, the European championships and the English and Scottish FA cup finals, but there are many other important matches. In considering the case for pay-per-view, football must be sure that it is not alienating its core audience. The Government believe that sport can and should act responsibly in making its broadcasting arrangements.
  Finally, it is important that we consider the possibilities for pay-per-view football in a proper perspective. Live coverage of club football in this country is a comparatively recent phenomenon, but the free-to-air television viewer now has access to a larger number of matches than ever before. Last week, the free-to-air viewer had access to live or full delayed coverage of five top European club matches, including Manchester United's match in Denmark, which was shown by the ITV network. Two of the matches were broadcast simultaneously, but, armed with a video recorder, the viewer could have watched more than 16 hours of top football. All four of the universally available channels—and Channel 5—contributed to that figure.
  The Government believe that it is important that pay-per-view should not develop at the expense of the general viewer, although we are not opposed to pay-per-view in principle. However, we also believe that free-to-air channels will continue to offer first-class sport, whatever the future shape of the broadcasting industry.
  I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government's position, and I again congratulate him on securing this important debate.

  Agriculture (Regulation)
  1.25 pm
  Mr. David Prior: I am pleased to have secured this debate. I was born and brought up on a farm—my brother now runs the family farm—and farming is very much in my bones. I am lucky to represent a constituency with such an important agricultural industry.
  Farmers and agriculture are in a dreadful state. The small family farm and the livestock and poultry industry are particularly vulnerable. Pigs are being destroyed, poultry farmers are losing money, the ban on beef on the bone remains and sheep are nearly worthless. Figures produced by the National Farmers Union show that, in the past two years, the price to the farmer of pigmeat has fallen by about 57 per cent., of lamb by 40 per cent., of feed wheat by 31 per cent., and of milk by 22 per cent. Many farmers and processors face bankruptcy. The implications will be felt throughout the countryside. Rural unemployment will rise and mixed farming with extensive grass will be particularly vulnerable, with all the resultant environmental effects.
  The Government do not seem to care about that. They seem to have washed their hands of the farming industry—perhaps there are simply not enough votes in farming. They are guilty of utter complacency. Farmers and processors deserve, and need, a level playing field and that is why I have chosen to focus on regulation. Over-regulation is playing straight into the hands of imports, undermining our exports and threatening the viability of much of our industry. We all know that some regulations are necessary, but they should be proportionate, sensibly and consistently applied and they should not discriminate against British producers. I shall take each of those four principles in turn.
  On the first—that regulation should be proportionate—it is perhaps understandable in the aftermath of E. coli, salmonella and BSE that we should err on the side of caution, but the ban on beef on the bone is, as the Selkirk sheriff court put it, a "manifest absurdity", which is out of all proportion to the risk involved. It is a triumph of emotional over rational argument. Indeed, the on-going ban may damage the potential for exporting British beef—a classic case of the law of unintended consequences at work. A continuing ban sets just the wrong context for the proposed Food Standards Agency. Of course, consumer safety is paramount, but let us keep some sense of proportion. By all means disclose the facts to consumers, but let them, and not the nanny state, decide.
  The second principle is that regulation should be applied sensibly. In the past 18 months, my dislike of the officious bureaucrat has increased daily. These days, it is almost as though officials were trying to catch out farmers and food processors. I shall give three examples. The first relates to the integrated control and administration system forms. I have heard from numerous farmers who have been massively penalised for making tiny and obviously innocent mistakes in filling in their IACS forms. Is there any discretion at MAFF? Apparently not. Is there any question of turning a blind eye? Again, apparently not. Simple mistakes happen and British farmers are penalised, but it is hard to imagine that happening in the olive groves of Spain, Italy or France.

  311
  The second example—I have written to the Minister about it—concerns a small, family-owned abattoir in my constituency. It operates for only 12 hours a week—on two separate days—dealing with small farms and supplying small butchers. It is a traditional business in a traditional Norfolk market town. I have been around the abattoir. The inspection regime since the implementation of the 1998 EU meat hygiene and inspection regulation means that, on occasions, there are four supervisors in charge of two slaughtermen. My constituent says:
  "The supervisors fall over each other to find work to do which is not available, so more expense is incurred through constant tea making."
  More seriously, such high and absurd levels of inspection will lead to the demise of small abattoirs and food processors, and will do nothing for public safety or animal welfare. The knock-on effect on small farms and retailers will play straight into the hands of large producers and supermarkets, for which regulation is a positive competitive benefit. British meat will be replaced by imports that are not subject to our high standards of welfare and hygiene, and British farmers and animals will be the losers.
  I give one more example of a crazy application of an EC directive, about which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) is also deeply concerned. In its wisdom, the EC introduced the fresh red meat directive, which provided for increased veterinary supervision in red meat abattoirs. What do the Government do? They voluntarily decide—I quote the words of chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service in a letter dated September 1998—that
  "supervision levels should also be increased in poultry slaughterhouses"
  to the same standard. That is the kind of gratuitous nonsense that infuriates British producers and undermines their competitiveness. The extra cost of compliance is estimated at 3p per bird—often the difference between making a profit and making a loss—and the quality, variability and cost of the official veterinary surgeons service are deeply resented.
  The third principle is that regulation should be consistently applied—there should be one standard for British farmers and processors, and that standard should be applied consistently to imports. I was struck by a report in the Financial Times of 26 October that claimed that EU vets had found Australian slaughterhouses and cold stores "generally weak". They witnessed "cruel treatment of animals" and they found that
  "vermin proofing was inadequate, maintenance and cleanliness was neglected",
  all of which had consequences for public health. Australia had been given a six-month ultimatum, which one might think fair enough until one realised that that was at the end of a six-year dispute.
  In East Anglia, we have a big poultry industry. One of my constituents showed me a box of imported whole frozen turkeys from Italy. The birds had clearly been thrown—unwrapped except for some newspaper—into a cardboard box, which breaks all known hygiene regulations, specifically the one that states that birds should be
  "enclosed in a sealed protective covering".
  Regulations are not properly enforced in much of Europe. Most of us have seen at first hand the way in which in European countries, cheese and meats are kept without
  312
  refrigeration. I have seen cheese kneaded by sweaty, hairy-chested, bare-headed Italians—very good it was too—when such methods would be totally disallowed in this country. There is no consistency, and we are allowing our farmers and processors to be unfairly penalised.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is not another example of the hon. Gentleman's point the fact that pig farming is much more stringently regulated in the UK than among our European competitors? The abolition in the UK of stalls and tethers, for example, amounts to an attack on pig farming here.
  Mr. Prior: I fully agree with that point, with which I shall deal in a minute.
  The fourth principle is that regulation should not be discriminatory against British products. In a press release issued earlier this year, the Minister called for higher welfare standards across Europe—I agree with that whole-heartedly, as I believe that welfare standards should be constantly improved. He said that there were no common EU rules on the treatment of animals on farms. For example, the Conservative Government banned pig stalls and tethers in this country, but in the rest of the EU the restrictions are fewer and will not be phased in until 2006. Why should we continue to import pigmeat that has been produced in conditions that we have rightly banned in this country? I could make the same point about the production of veal in veal crates, which were properly banned by the previous Government.
  In this country, meat and bonemeal have been banned from the feed ration. Why should we import poultry and meat products from other animals that are fed with animal protein? We are even exporting bones to France to be rendered down into bonemeal, so that the French can feed it to poultry and export the product to us, giving them approximately a 3p per pound cost advantage. That is crazy, but the same applies to antibiotic residue testing, which should be applied to all imports.
  Our farmers and processors need a level playing field. Imports should match our high standards and regulation should be consistently and sensibly applied rather than disproportionate to the risk involved. At the very least, imports should be properly labelled, so that consumers know what they are buying. The label should state where the meat is produced and not only where it is packaged, which can be misleading—often deliberately so.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned risk analysis. How would he assess the risk analysis of some of those products, and in whose interests would he do it—those of the consumer, the European hairy-chested Italian, about whom he racistly talks, or his farming friends?
  Mr. Prior: I dislike the hon. Gentleman's pejorative use of the words "his farming friends". Frankly, the farmers should be the friends of all hon. Members. There must be a balance and some common sense. Of course the consumer must be properly protected, but not disproportionately so. I accept that risk assessment is extremely difficult, but it cannot be left only to scientific experts—common-sense judgments must be applied.
  There must be full disclosure, so that consumers can make up their own minds about what they are eating. Labels should clearly state the health, hygiene, feed and

  313
  welfare standards to which the product conforms. Let the consumer then decide. However, in a written parliamentary answer, the Minister of State said that he had no intention of requiring imported meat to be labelled to show whether it had been fed on animal proteins. He went out of his way to say:
  "There are no proposals to extend labelling requirements to cover compliance with national animal health and welfare standards."—[Official Report, 29 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 106.]
  That is disgraceful. Many consumers will be horrified to know that they are eating imported food products produced in welfare conditions that have rightly been banned for years in this country.
  We all want the British farmer and food processor to produce safe, high-quality and tasty products, and of course regulation is necessary to achieve that and to give the consumer sensible protection. However, we are running the risk of regulating ourselves out of the market. If we are not careful, it will not be economically possible to produce poultry, pig, lamb and beef products in this country. Instead, we shall end up importing products from countries where welfare standards are much lower than ours and where quality and food safety are less reliable.
  1.38 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on raising serious concerns about the impact of regulation on British agriculture. I agree that excessive and unnecessary regulation must be avoided, but it is difficult to avoid a certain amount of regulation, for all sorts of reasons.
  As a Government, we recognise the difficulties facing many sections of agriculture, especially in relation to prices. I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, in what was generally a reasonable and well-argued speech, came out with the nonsense that the Government do not care about what is happening to agriculture. That is most certainly not true. Farmers and rural organisations know very well that we care and that we are giving all the support that we can, including the extra £78 million for the beef and sheep sector last winter and a range of other support.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about the ban on beef on the bone. The risk of BSE getting into the food chain is not theoretical: so far, 30 people have died from new-variant CJD and others are suspected to be suffering from it. It would be ridiculous for any Government—let alone a Government who have made it clear that we intend to put consumer safety before all other considerations—to allow material that was known to carry a risk of infection to go into the food chain; to have done so, we would have had to put a warning on beef on the supermarket shelves saying that there was a risk to consumers, and we are not prepared to do that.
  All beef that is on sale in this country—and that which, I am glad to say, is now being exported from Northern Ireland—is absolutely safe; we are absolutely confident about that. It is not good enough to say that we should take risks. It is difficult to give people choices when beef on the bone could be used in stocks and gravies and consumers in catering establishments would not know
  314
  what was in their food. We have to ensure that consumers are protected. I am hopeful that the ban will be a temporary measure. We shall certainly review it again under the date-based scheme, following appropriate advice from our expert scientific committees.
  Mr. James Paice: If that is the case, why are the bones that are removed from the meat not classified as specified material? Why, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) said, can they be exported, turned into bonemeal and fed to animals the products of which can come back into this country? Either the bones are dangerous, or they are not.
  Mr. Morley: It is not my understanding that that happens. There is a restriction on what can be used in meat and bonemeal. Bones from the pig industry, for example, are allowed to be exported if they are from dedicated plants.
  I appreciate the point that the hon. Member for North Norfolk made about welfare standards. We have been pressing for improved welfare standards throughout the European Union, and we want to achieve common standards on, for example, battery cages.
  We support better labelling, as we want consumers to have as much information as possible. Part of that has to be negotiated through the European Union, as we need common agreement, which can sometimes be difficult. Retailers have the freedom to label, and many already have detailed labelling linked to quality assurance schemes, and we very much welcome and support that, because it gives our producers, such as those in the pig industry, who have the highest welfare and quality standards in Europe, a marketing advantage, in that they can meet the quality assurance criteria that the retailers set.
  I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he talks about turning a blind eye to regulations. I am sure that he did not mean that quite as it sounded. We cannot turn a blind eye to regulations, and especially not those that are designed to protect consumer safety or to ensure that taxpayers' money is used appropriately in the various support schemes. The schemes must be monitored, run and audited properly.
  Whenever I hear it said that regulations are not enforced in Europe, I say let us see the evidence. Where there is evidence that other European Union member states are not enforcing the rules, we will take action.
  Mr. Prior: Part of the evidence is the massive fraud that goes on in the common agricultural policy. Is that not some evidence that the rules are not being applied on the continent?
  Mr. Morley: There is certainly fraud in the CAP; indeed, there have been irregularities in CAP payments in our own country, which have quite properly been pursued. The fact that the fraud is identified demonstrates the fact that the European system works. The European Court of Auditors is becoming increasingly successful in tracking down fraud, and quite rightly so.
  I repeat that, where there is evidence of other countries not complying with regulations, we will not hesitate to raise the matter with the European Commission and, if necessary, take it to the European Court—we have made

  315
  that clear time and time again—but the idea that only the UK enforces the rules does not stand up to critical examination. Indeed, the previous Government were in breach of European regulations by not applying the directive on slaughterhouses. The hon. Gentleman spoke about veterinary inspections, but the relevant directive was not applied by the previous Administration. We have been warned by the Commission that it will take action against us if we do not comply as other member states do.
  European Union and domestic support measures put £3 billion a year into agriculture, leaving aside the special sums for BSE-related measures, which alone amounted to £800 million in 1997–98. Those are large sums, and we need regulations to ensure that the money goes to those who are eligible and that the benefits are properly verified.
  We need regulations to safeguard public health. I accept that they have become more complicated with the changes in food preparation and production methods, and there has to be a balance between proper enforcement and targeting risk areas to avoid the exploitation of loopholes by the unscrupulous.
  We are prepared to review the controls at regular intervals so that they can be modified to achieve what they are designed for. Specified risk materials regulations are a case in point. We have amended the regulations on removal of the spinal cord to allow the trade in unsplit carcases to be resumed. That has been warmly welcomed by the sheep industry. We can still meet the regulations, so the spinal column can be removed but the carcase can be sent directly to French cutting plants.
  We want to protect consumers and producers by ensuring that there is public confidence. Without that confidence, markets will fall. We have witnessed that with BSE, which has been a catastrophe for the livestock industry, devastating the beef industry and having knock-on effects on the sheep sector. We have been struggling to get to grips with the BSE problem and bring it to an end, and we are confident that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
  Last April, we needed to implement new specified risk material controls. That would have cost the industry £35 million, but, recognising the pressures on the livestock sector, the Government have absorbed those costs and not passed on that £35 million to the livestock industry.
  The Government want to ensure that we sustain a good environment to maintain biodiversity. As agriculture covers some 75 per cent. of our land, it has a key role in that. In 1997–98, payments of £14.7 million were made under the countryside stewardship scheme alone, and we support agriculture in its efforts in 22 designated environmentally sensitive areas. However, sometimes, genuine mistakes are made in all sorts of forms, be it special premium or IACS forms. The Government understand that. However, the regulations are laid down. These are European Union payments through CAP. The regulations come from the EU and we have little room for manoeuvre in relation to them.
  Many IACS forms are being sent in and the applicants are receiving in return many thousands of pounds in relation to arable area payments; in many cases, large payments are made. If farmers are not confident about avoiding mistakes, professional advisers and consultants will do that for them. Obviously, there is a charge, but,
  316
  when dealing with thousands of pounds of money, that is something that some farmers could and, indeed, do consider.
  Mr. Öpik: On that point, sometimes the payments are delayed through no fault of the farmer—in other words, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to try to bring those payments up a bit. In those circumstances, will the Minister consider investigating the possibility of interest payments on lost earnings as a result of the delay of the payment to the farmer?
  Mr. Morley: I accept that there have been cases of slow payments. Particularly in present financial circumstances, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture Food has made it clear that we shall consider trying to speed up payments, so that money gets to farmers as quickly as possible. That is being done at present. All our regional service centres are aware of the Government's desire to ensure that the money gets into farmers' hands as quickly as possible and that we do not have undue delay, so I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with that point.
  The hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned his concerns about the abattoir sector. It is true that regulation has been changed to increase veterinary supervision of such premises. That does have an effect, particularly on small slaughterhouses; the Government understand that. We share many of those concerns, but I emphasise that the Government do not advocate regulation simply for the sake of it; simply because we want more of it. We support requirements on meat hygiene that can be justified on public health grounds.
  The safety of food is one of the Government's priorities. We believe that meat should be produced to the highest standards in this country. I remind the hon. Member for North Norfolk that one of the reasons why BSE went on for as long as it did and at the level that it did, is that, even when controls were introduced by the previous Administration, in many cases, they were not being properly applied in slaughterhouses or meat plants. Those are important issues, and they have to be dealt with properly.
  We did not lightly take the decision to increase veterinary supervision but, as I have mentioned, it was necessary to implement the previous Government's under-implementation of the harmonised EU meat hygiene rules. The European Commission has initiated legal proceedings against the UK for its failure to implement fully the specific veterinary supervision requirements that are laid down in the fresh meat directive.
  That relates to poultry as well as to red meat. It is not a question of the Government saying, "Wouldn't it be a good idea if we applied that to poultry as well?" It is laid down by EU directive and we have to comply with that.
  We have taken steps to raise supervision levels towards those required and believe that those steps are essential to improve control over meat-licensed premises, to avoid a European court case, as well as to support our efforts to have the beef export ban lifted for the whole of the UK. Hon. Members can appreciate that we are in the final stages of getting the ban lifted. We are very confident that we have made significant progress on that. It is our objective to get that ban lifted before the end of the year.

  317
  If we were not implementing EU directives on slaughterhouses, there is no possibility that we could get that ban lifted. We can go to the EU and make it clear to it that we are complying with all EU directives, as well as the tight regulations that we have to protect the consumer.
  The regulations come from the EU. They set out in great detail what is required of member states and are tightly drawn. I accept that the regulations are sometimes complex, but controls are necessary to protect EU and Exchequer funds from fraud.
  I have mentioned the fact that we do not have much discretion over how those rules are implemented. We are exploring the scope to cut bureaucracy whenever we can. An example is that we are consulting with the industry on a proposal for producers no longer to have to apply for a separate document to accompany beef special premium scheme claims. Under that proposal, producers will be able to apply for premium using existing cattle passport documents, which we have recently introduced.
  As to the future reform of livestock schemes under Agenda 2000 proposals, one of our objectives in negotiation is to look, wherever possible, for simplification of current arrangements. That may be difficult to achieve. Indeed, as long as we have subsidies, we have to have some regulation to control them. That goes with the CAP and it goes with subsidies.
  We have a range of priorities in negotiations, such as the need to ensure that Agenda 2000 addresses restructuring of the sector. Current Agenda 2000 proposals do not look promising in terms of simplifying regulations, but we shall continue to push for that wherever possible.
  We want to look at cases where farmers feel aggrieved. We do that when farmers make appeals, through regional service centres, that they have been unfairly treated.
  I have spoken about why we need to have regulation, but we recognise the impact that it can have. For that reason, we have sought to ensure that many of the recommendations on regulation are included in the Department's efficiency scrutiny study to reduce the burden of paperwork on farmers. Although, in many cases, it has been difficult—because of the overriding need to get consumers and EU confidence back into our beef production—we have made considerable progress in simplifying regulation. So far, about £5.4 million worth of farmers' time should have been saved through changes to procedures and an additional £1.1 million should be realised next year when new simplification comes through.
  318
  When introducing new schemes or revising existing ones, we consult the industry. We keep careful control on forms. We check that every question is essential and that the forms are clear. We trial them wherever possible and aim to keep the burden of time spent on filling them in proportion to the benefits to be gained.
  We are increasingly using modern electronic technology to save farmers time. Many forms are now sent out to producers with basic information, such as names, addresses and holding numbers, pre-printed on the form. For the suckler cow scheme, we also pre-print figures on the number of animals notified for the preceding years' scheme. In that way, farmers need notify us only of changes, instead of going through the whole procedure. We have a system in place so that all forms that we use in the Ministry are reviewed for need and content at least once every three years, to ensure that there is still a role for them and that they are not just a waste of time for farmers.
  A further consideration is that most regulations in the UK are an integral part of the CAP or the EU's single market. EU schemes have to take account of operating systems in all member countries to ensure as far as possible an even playing field and consistent enforcement. That can also affect the complexity of regulations.
  We consult with those involved when we bring in regulations. We seek to adjust regulations after criticisms or suggestions. For example, we recently conducted a survey of the beef suckler cow premium scheme form. Much of it was found to be reasonable, but we are considering a few troublesome points to find out what changes we can make. We consulted on the SRM regulations, which allow exports of unsplit sheep carcases.
  All the inspectorates and enforcement agencies that come under MAFF are reviewing their standards of practice to ensure the full spirit of the Government's enforcement concordat initiative. That concordat will, I hope, be adopted by local authorities and, to the extent that their activities impinge on agriculture, the benefits of better enforcement will also be felt there.
  The regulation issue is important. An element of regulation is unavoidable to help to protect public health and safety, to ensure proper controls of animal and plant diseases and to safeguard taxpayers' money, as well as to boost the economic health of our industry through providing confidence to consumers and a fair framework. We do not introduce regulations lightly. We shall review them, but we believe that what we have at the moment is fair and balanced.
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Irish Language Schools
    Ms Margaret Moran: What plans she has to increase the number of Irish language schools. [54760]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): Following the Government's commitment in the Belfast agreement, the Department of Education has a statutory duty to facilitate and encourage Irish-medium education and is drawing up proposals for the funding of a body to promote its development. In addition, arrangements are in place to enable Irish-medium pre-school provision to be grant aided within the pre-school education expansion programme for Northern Ireland. Around 1,250 pupils are currently enrolled in grant-aided Irish-medium schools in Northern Ireland.
    Ms Moran: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and for the requirement in the education order to encourage and facilitate Irish-medium schools. Does he acknowledge that an impediment to achieving that objective remains in the school numbers criteria, which restrict several Irish-medium schools, such as the Meanscoil Dhoire in Derry, from receiving registration and funding? Will my hon. Friend undertake to reconsider the school numbers criteria so that the agreement's laudable objective of increasing the number of Irish-medium schools is achieved?
    Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. We recently reduced the viable entrance criterion from 100 to 80 for secondary schools. The school to which she referred does not, unfortunately, meet current viability thresholds, but we are considering setting up an Irish-medium unit at St. Brigid's secondary school. The school to which my hon. Friend referred is receiving £120,000 from the European Union, and there is a possibility of further capital funding.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: The Belfast agreement refers to the Council of Europe's charter for regional and minority languages. Can the Minister confirm that it states that the promotion of Irish should take place only where it is desired, and that Irish will not be generally promoted throughout Northern Ireland, where only 3 per cent. of people are fluent in it?
    Mr. Murphy: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. Irish-medium education depends on viability and on whether people want to be taught through the medium of Irish. As far as general use of the Irish language is concerned, the Government are committed to ensuring that there are no obstacles in the way of those who desire to learn it and use it.

    Peace Process
    Mr. John Smith: Which parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly she has met to discuss the level of public support for the peace process; and if she will make a statement. [54762]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): My ministerial colleagues and I have met all the political parties represented in the Assembly several times, and I met most of the parties yesterday to discuss support for the Good Friday agreement and how we can maintain momentum.
    Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Will she join me in congratulating the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on winning the Nobel peace prize? The prize confers great honour on the House, and every hon. Member should recognise that. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what hopes she has for the initiative taken by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to find a consensus among all the parties in Northern Ireland on progress towards the next stage of implementation of the Good Friday agreement?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and join him in congratulating the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on their tremendous achievement. They both deserve it royally. The initiative mentioned was launched on Monday and I understand that it will commence tomorrow with discussions with all the parties in an attempt to resolve a number of outstanding issues under the Good Friday agreement. I wish them every success in that effort. It is important that they are dealing with the issues between the parties on the ground and discussing them themselves. I wish them luck.
    Mr. David Trimble: May I refer the Secretary of State to ceasefires by paramilitary organisations? I am sure that she wants to ensure that the Government operate even-handedly. In particular, I refer her to the ceasefire by the Loyalist Volunteer Force, which has held for several months and appears to be just as genuine as any other paramilitary ceasefire. What is the attitude of the Northern Ireland Office to that ceasefire? Has she received recently any fresh assessment from any element in the security forces with regard to it?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I assure him that I want to act even-handedly with all groups associated with trying to find a ceasefire. He particularly referred to the LVF. I have said before that I will keep the situation under constant review, and I have. I have received a recent report from the security forces which I am reviewing. I have said that I will make a judgment in the following weeks on whether I think that the situation needs to be reviewed. It is a serious, difficult issue and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not dragging my feet.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: We in the Northern Ireland community greatly rejoiced at the award of the Nobel peace prize to my party leader and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. We have made our exaltation

    321
    known to them personally already. The Secretary of State will share my disappointment that this phase of the Belfast agreement is not likely to be implemented by 31 October. Does she agree that the immediate cause of the impasse is the failure to agree on the departmental structures of the north of Ireland and on the implementing bodies north and south? While both communities desire at least token decommissioning of weapons by both republican and loyalist paramilitaries, that thorny and emotive problem was handed by the agreement to an international, independent decommissioning body.
    Marjorie Mowlam: It is important to have deadlines to focus people. I hope that we continue to work to 31 October even though it is close and it may be difficult to get there. That does not mean that we should not try. Several issues are creating difficulties: decommissioning and the Executive body. Then there is the progress that I hope that the parties will make with the work done by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the parties tomorrow. It is important that progress is made in parallel on all aspects of the agreement so that confidence can be built and we can get more momentum back in the process.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: What would the Secretary of State regard as satisfactory and significant progress by the 31 October deadline, given that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have been working hard over the summer, especially in the past few weeks, to make the progress that we need for a lasting settlement?
    Marjorie Mowlam: It is difficult for me to set an absolute baseline. Obviously, we want as much progress as possible, but what is happening more and more—and this is what is important—is that it is the parties, their leaders, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister who are trying to take the process forward. Of course, the Government will do all that we can in terms of pace, help and encouragement—as, I am sure, will the Irish Government—to help make progress.
    Deadlines are important. We have missed them before. We missed the one for the Good Friday agreement by a number of days, but everybody managed to live with that and make progress afterwards. We are still working at it.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the Secretary of State accept that all reasonable people would expect there to be no further early releases of terrorist prisoners until there is substantial and verifiable decommissioning of all illegally held weapons and explosives?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I appreciate the support of the right hon. Gentleman and his party for the Good Friday agreement. I look forward to that support extending to its contents. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, neither he nor I—no one—can renegotiate the Good Friday agreement. It is there and it says that there must be progress in parallel on all the different dimensions. It also says that if progress is not being made on different dimensions, it can be reviewed. I have not forgotten that. This is not about grabbing headlines. This is about the work taking place on the ground by the parties trying to make progress. We should give them the support, encouragement and space necessary to do that.
    Mr. MacKay: Will the Secretary of State accept that, from the Dispatch Box, her Prime Minister made it clear
    322
    that decommissioning was part of the agreement and part of the renunciation of violence? We have now had over six months and not one single gun or one ounce of Semtex has been handed in. Over the same time, over 150 hardened terrorist prisoners have been released early. That is not parallel.
    Marjorie Mowlam: I have made clear to the right hon. Gentleman on other occasions the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I shall repeat them. He said that decommissioning is crucial, that it is a central part of the agreement and that we want all dimensions to move in parallel. If there is no progress, we will review it. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), gave a commitment that we would support the parties, the people and the Parliament when they made a decision. That is what we intend to do.

    Mental Health Provision
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What plans she has to improve mental health provision. [54763]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that the plans for the development of mental health services are set out in the document, "Regional Strategy for Health and Social Well-Being 1997–2002". That document sets out quality targets and time scales so that we can be sure that we do all we can to meet the needs of the most vulnerable in society.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that response, but will the right hon. Lady accept that, while there are those of us who have been supporting care in the community, there is also deepening concern that there may not be enough secure units for people who need special help? Will she also accept that the changes suggested for Muckamore Abbey hospital—taking the power of decision from parents and guardians—are causing great concern in relation to children and young people, who are particularly vulnerable?
    Marjorie Mowlam: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there are six traditional hospitals with secure units for people with mental health difficulties and there are wards within the major hospitals. The plan that is being put together will look at the question raised by the hon. Gentleman—need in relation to community. The hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency that beds have been moved from one institution that helps people with mental health difficulties to another. It is those specifics that are being considered by the regional strategy to ensure that the aims stated by the hon. Gentleman are those achieved. There is a section addressed particularly to young people because, as the hon. Gentleman and I agree, that is a crucial part of the future development of mental health care in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will welcome her robust defence of the entirety of the Belfast agreement? Will she ensure that that applies also to the proposed powers—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This question is about mental health. Perhaps I will look to the hon. Gentleman on a more appropriate question.

    Educational Standards
    Mr. Phil HopeWhat steps her Department has taken to ensure high educational standards in Northern Ireland. [54764]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): Educational standards have improved substantially in recent years, but they could be higher still. The school improvement programme and a number of other initiatives, including a reduction in class sizes for the youngest pupils and the expansion of pre-school education, have been introduced to ensure that standards continue to improve.
    Mr. Hope: Does my hon. Friend agree that educational standards and, probably as important, wider community development would be greatly enhanced if we could promote integrated education much more widely in Northern Ireland? Can he assure me that every effort is being made by the Government to promote the transformation of schools into integrated schools so that many more of our children in Northern Ireland can grow up in an atmosphere and culture of co-operation and learning across the religious divide?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend. Integrated education provides an opportunity for young people in Northern Ireland to be educated in a unique way. I am glad to tell the House that there are now 40 such integrated schools in Northern Ireland. We have also set up a co-ordinating group to improve the further development of those schools and we intend to spend a further £30 million in the next three years on integrated education in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the provision of a pre-school place for every child whose parents seek one will eventually increase the achievement of children at primary and post-primary level? Does he further agree that greater collaboration between grammar schools, secondary schools and colleges on local education provision could enhance standards? Does he agree that there is now a unique opportunity under the Labour Government for secondary schools to embark on providing lifelong learning for the whole of the communities that are served by them, thereby raising standards for every individual?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Much of what he has said is the policy of my party. Across the board—from pre-school to further education—the Government are committed to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. We are ensuring that there are 2,200 extra pre-school places from September. That is the largest increase ever. We have spent £50 million extra in Northern Ireland on education. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's questions. I agree with every point that he has made.

    Economy
    Mr. Ian Pearson: What progress has been made towards strengthening the economy in Northern Ireland. [54765]
    Mr. Brian White: What progress has been made in promoting a strong and sustainable economy in Northern Ireland. [54768]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Northern Ireland economy is performing very well. Unemployment continues to fall and is at its lowest level since 1980. Manufacturing output is outpacing the United Kingdom average. The Chancellor's economic package announced in May offers major benefits, and the current north American investment tour has attracted significant interest. These measures will greatly assist us to exploit the economic opportunities presented by lasting peace and stability.
    Mr. Pearson: I spent time working in Northern Ireland in the late 1980s encouraging enterprise. The business climate is now transformed and the economic prospects are far better. I welcome the north American investment tour. What indications are there of its success? What other measures are planned to ensure that more Northern Ireland companies do more business in our European home market?
    Mr. Ingram: It is too early to say what the outcome of the 11-city tour, or north American investment tour, will be. We have attracted more than 1,000 business interests from the cities that we have visited. We have had a high-quality input from the business community in north America and we have had a high level of endorsement from existing United States investors in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to everyone who participated in that north American tour, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson).
    Clearly, the whole of Europe is an important marketplace for the Northern Ireland economy. It is for that reason that we are targeting that market as well, through a number of initiatives. I can advise the House that all the Assembly Members have been invited on, and most of them will participate in, a visit to the European Union next week so that they can get up to speed on this important issue.
    Mr. White: I left Northern Ireland at the age of 18 because of the lack of job prospects. Does the Minister agree that structural unemployment is one of the key issues facing Northern Ireland, and will he outline the success of the new deal in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the environmental task force and community and voluntary groups?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend has touched on an important range of matters. He is right about structural unemployment, which is an endemic and deep problem within Northern Ireland's economy. One of the initiatives we have taken is a £40-million package announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor earlier this year, which is to be targeted on long-term unemployment among those

    325
    aged 25 and over. That will provide schemes covering up to 30,000 unemployed people and will go a long way toward redressing much of the structural unemployment-causing imbalance inherent in the Northern Ireland economy. The scheme represents one third of the total UK schemes for the 25-plus group. It sits alongside other initiatives covering 18 to 24-year-olds and the new measures the Government are taking through the targeting social need initiatives.
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Minister agree that strengthening the economy requires long-term planning? Will he tell the House what long-term plans were made in respect of prison officers who, inevitably, would be made redundant as a result of political progress in Northern Ireland? Will he tell us how many prison officers are likely to be made redundant over the next two years; and what efforts have been made to put in place fast-track retraining facilities to deal with those officers who are likely to be thrown on the scrap heap of the unemployed?
    Mr. Ingram: My feeling is that many of the prison officers who enter the employment market will not be thrown on the scrap heap of the unemployed, if we can increase the level of job opportunities in Northern Ireland. To achieve that, we need to have peace and stability. The number of prison officers who are likely to be made redundant is rather indeterminate, depending as it does on the pace of prisoner releases and changes in the approach taken toward the whole prison regime in Northern Ireland. A review is currently taking place of the long-term needs of the prison regime as it serves Northern Ireland's interests. In addition, through the Prison Service, we have entered into negotiations with prison officers to look at some of the issues—indeed, all of them and more—the hon. Gentleman raises.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Given that the agri-food industry is the largest industry in Northern Ireland and that farming faces its biggest crisis this century, with farm incomes down 50 per cent. in two years and agricultural bank debt increasing to £500 million, when are the Government going to act to prevent a major collapse in the rural economy; or is that yet another price worth paying in the fight against inflation?
    Mr. Ingram: To hear any Conservative Member bleating on behalf of farmers is a bit rich, given what the Conservatives did to the farming community during the many years they were in power. The Government have set out to deal with the problem of BSE that we inherited; to return confidence to the meat and livestock markets; to take new initiatives to give support to the farming community; and to ensure that a local purchasing approach is taken within Northern Ireland's economy. That last measure is important, because farming is an important part of the overall economy in Northern Ireland. We have grasped the issue firmly and we are making progress. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. We can barely hear what is being said.

    Women's Involvement in Politics
    Maria Eagle: What steps she is taking to encourage more women to become involved in elected politics. [54766]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): In dealing with that question, we should be careful not to make the mistake of thinking that, because no women from Northern Ireland have been elected to the European Parliament or to the House, women in Northern Ireland are not politically active. Over the years, women in Northern Ireland have done a lot to build the peace process, and to build trust from the bottom up. Of the 108 Assembly Members, 14 are women. Ultimately, it will be for the parties to decide whether women manage to come through and win election.
    We have done everything that we can on the issue. Northern Ireland hosted the conference of women European Union Ministers. Earlier this year, we also held the women's national commission regional conference. A couple of months ago, Hillary Clinton and I hosted a conference, "Vital Voices", to encourage more women to seek office.
    Maria Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and warmly welcome the progress that is clearly being made in Northern Ireland to ensure that more women participate in elected office. Does she agree that further progress towards gender equality in elected office could only assist the peace process, and that such equality will be a clear and visible indication that all sections of both communities are participating and being represented in the on-going peace process?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with my hon. Friend, and assure her that what we can do in monitoring, targeting and encouraging movement in the public sector, particularly the civil service, is being done. It is the political parties themselves that will be involved in making progress, and I am sure that they have heard her message.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Although I welcome any action to encourage more women to stand for elected office in Northern Ireland, may I ask the Secretary of State whether she will resist the temptation to revert to a former socialist policy of single-sex lists for nomination—bearing in mind that most women wish to be elected not only because of their ability, but because of what they stand for and can offer to the electorate?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I am sure that the hon. Lady heard me say that the matter is for the individual political parties, whether they are in Britain or in Northern Ireland.

    Equal Opportunities
    Mr. Chris Pond: What measures her Department has taken to promote equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. [54767]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): Parliament is currently considering the Northern Ireland Bill, which provides for a new

    327
    equality commission and for a new statutory obligation on public authorities to perform their functions with due regard for equal opportunities.
    Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I also welcome the establishment of the equality commission—as, I am sure, will the recently established Northern Ireland Low Pay Unit, which, I am sure, will receive the House's support. Does my hon. Friend accept that, in addition to those developments, the new deal—about which we have heard much today—and the national minimum wage will have a major impact in Northern Ireland by reducing the disproportionate impact of low pay and the gender pay gap between men and women in Northern Ireland? Will he tell the House when the national minimum wage will be introduced in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Murphy: I assure my hon. Friend that the national minimum wage will be the same across the United Kingdom and that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have no power to vary it. I can tell him also that discussions are continuing on other aspects of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 for which the Northern Ireland Departments are currently responsible.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Minister confirm that, in Northern Ireland, there must be equality of opportunity between democrats and the representatives of gunmen, and that there can be no progress in the peace process by placing the representatives of armed tenor in government while terrorists remain fully armed with explosives and guns?
    Mr. Murphy: It is very important that, as my right hon. Friend said, we implement all aspects of the Good Friday agreement, which was a package in favour of which the people of Northern Ireland voted by a very large majority. Events in the next few days in Belfast—with talks between the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and all the party political leaders, including the hon. and learned Gentleman—will go a long way towards ensuring that those problems are resolved.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister said that the agreement had to be implemented in full. Will my hon. Friend therefore give an undertaking to the House that all the direct powers given to the equality commission and to the human rights commission and outlined in the agreement will be put in place, specifically with regard to victimless crimes?
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is aware, because we met earlier today to discuss these matters, that I and my right hon. Friend have had many meetings to consult on various aspects of the Bill—probably an unprecedented amount of consultation. I assure him that the agreement will be implemented in the Northern Ireland Bill.

    Drumcree
    Mr. William Thompson: What is the estimated cost of the security forces' deployment at Drumcree in 1998. [54769]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The additional cost of the Royal Ulster Constabulary operations at Drumcree, including the consequential impact elsewhere, during July 1998 amounted to approximately £11 million. Since July, additional costs have continued to be incurred by police at approximately £400,000 per month, due to the continuing protest.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that had the Parades Commission taken the right decision and allowed the parade down the Garvaghy road, the expenditure would have been much less. Does he further agree that had the proper decision been taken, the subsequent deaths and injuries might not have occurred? Finally, will he acknowledge that, as a result of the bad decision, community relations are at an all-time low in the Portadown district?
    Mr. Ingram: It is worth while reflecting momentarily on the fact that one Royal Ulster Constabulary officer has lost his life as a result, and many others have been driven from their homes because of thuggery and brutal actions against them and their families. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to that.
    There can be no question but that there is a need to uphold the rule of law at all times. That is something that this Government and previous Governments have done throughout the long history of Northern Ireland. The cost of that is one that the British taxpayer is prepared to pay because upholding the law is fundamental to all of us. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the decision was wrong. It was a properly arrived at decision. Of course, we are now seeking to move it forward by bringing the two sides of the community together. The Government are very active in achieving some reconciliation within that community with the help of people from that community.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Howard Flight: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Flight: I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that a common European Union withholding tax would be disastrous for employment and for the earnings of the City of London. Will he agree to use our veto if necessary to stop that happening?
    The Prime Minister: We will certainly use our veto to stop any measure that will harm the City of London.

    329
    I have to say that not all measures that we agree with our European partners would do that, but if any measure did do that, we would certainly not hesitate to use our veto.
    Mr. Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in the House last night the Conservative Opposition attempted to prevent British workers from being protected by basic minimum standards for hours of work, rest breaks and paid holidays. Will he assure me that the Government will continue to promote fairness in the workplace, thus ensuring that the Conservative party, which opposes the minimum wage and minimum standards, will remain a very minimum party?
    The Prime Minister: We will certainly introduce the minimum wage. We believe that the Opposition's calls for the minimum wage to be cancelled next year are wrong and do nothing for people on very low incomes, for their families or for the economy. We believe that basic, fair, decent standards in the workplace are fully compatible with an effective and dynamic economy.
    Mr. William Hague: The Prime Minister committed himself at the election to a referendum on the voting system in this Parliament. Is he still committed to it?
    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we will state our position when the Jenkins commission reports tomorrow.
    Mr. Hague: What is wrong with answering a question in this House yes or no? Does not the Prime Minister's answer reveal that he has got himself into something that he does not know how to get out of? He now has the Foreign Secretary, wherever he is, passionately in favour of proportional representation, the Leader of the House passionately against it, and himself passionately concerned to avoid answering the question, not knowing whether to betray the Liberal party or the Labour party. He has got himself into an indecisive position, like the late—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has become as indecisive as the late Lord Wilson, who also had a faithful dog called Paddy, although not on this particular subject. On 11 February 1997, he said in the Financial Times:
    "We have made it clear all the way through that we are committed to a referendum and we are committed to it as part of our programme for the next Parliament".
    Does that apply—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: As indeed I said a few days ago, we have always envisaged holding a referendum this Parliament, but we have also said that we shall wait for the Jenkins commission, to see what precise system of voting change it proposes. I should have thought that it was sensible to wait for the Jenkins commission to report before stating a view on it.
    Mr. Hague: How is it that a commitment in the Labour party manifesto depends on the writings of the former leader of the Social Democratic party; and that the Prime
    330
    Minister now envisages keeping a promise, but will wait to see whether he is going to do so? [Interruption.] Even he is laughing at the silliness of his own answers.
    Is it not time the right hon. Gentleman stopped blundering into constitutional upheavals without knowing what they will lead to, and are there not higher priorities for the Government, with jobs being lost every day and with hospitals facing a crisis this winter? These are the real people's priorities. Should he not be dealing with them instead of trying to gerrymander a system that has served our country well?
    The Prime Minister: First, we have made it clear that it is sensible to wait for the Jenkins commission to report, because obviously, the system that Lord Jenkins proposes will be relevant in determining the position of the Government and the referendum.
    As for the people's priorities, since the Government came to power we have reduced the unemployment that we inherited from the Conservatives. There are now 400,000 extra jobs, and 100,000 children are being taught in classes whose size has been reduced since the Conservatives were in government. Under the present Government, after years of lengthening waiting lists, waiting lists are shortening. Under the Labour Government, thanks to the new deal, 140,000 young people are off the dole. That shows this Government addressing the mess inherited from the Conservative Government.
    Ms Debra Shipley: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the women in Stourbridge on taking a stand against domestic violence and joining the NSPCC and the police locally tomorrow, at a meeting, to bring attention to the appalling reality of violence in the home? One in 10 women suffered violence in the home last year, and one in four have done so at some time in their lives. Is my right hon. Friend aware that—even worse—in 70 per cent. of cases where the woman was abused, the child was also abused; and that, in 90 per cent. of cases where the woman was abused, the child was in the room or next door? This cannot go on.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, domestic violence has been a problem that has probably been going on for a long period, but we are more aware of it today than ever before. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the police are taking it far more seriously now, and will produce, over the next few months, a plan to try to reduce domestic violence and help its victims.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that loss of life on a substantial scale, starting with children and the elderly, is now only weeks away in Kosovo? [HON. MEMBERS: "Not again."] I am amazed to hear that from the Conservative Benches. Of course it is right that President Milosevic should have responded to the credible threat of the use of force, and that NATO should now preserve that on a hair-trigger. Should not our urgent attention now turn to the pitiful plight of the refugees who are suffering as a result of President Milosevic's brutality? Is not the scale and

    331
    urgency of the international effort nowhere near what is necessary to preserve them and prevent a catastrophe yet to come?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is still an awful lot more to do. We have provided £1 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for co-ordination and shelter for the people who have been displaced. We have also given extra money to a range of non-governmental organisations. In addition, we are sending our own assessment team to ensure that supplies get to the people who need them.
    A few weeks ago there were 50,000 people living outside. That has now been reduced to 10,000, so we are making progress; but I agree that we have to keep the activation order in being so that we can take action at any time if it looks as though Milosevic is not going to comply with the agreement into which he has entered. If he does not comply, we shall remain of the view that we must act, if necessary by military force.
    Mr. Ashdown: The fact that the people are coming out of the forest does not mean that their lives will be saved. They are moving to appalling disease, overcrowding and, in many cases, homes that have no roofs and food that has been wasted and exhausted in the past few months. Britain has taken the lead in pressing for stronger action in Kosovo.
    Will the Prime Minister now give us an undertaking that Britain will take the lead in pressing for the resources and urgency necessary to resolve the humanitarian problem? In particular, as we have used NATO aircraft to such good effect to persuade President Milosevic to comply, could we not use NATO aircraft to ship in the resources and materials necessary to ensure that those who have suffered from his brutality are able to survive the coming winter?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly can give an undertaking that we shall do whatever we can. I am advised at the moment that we do not think that the delivery of humanitarian assistance would be helped by the use of NATO planes, but I understand that additional measures are being taken to try to ensure that daily relief convoys reach the parts of the country that they are currently not reaching. We shall keep the situation closely monitored.
    The 40,000 who have come in from the outside have not just been left. They are being provided with the medical and food assistance that they need, but there is an awful lot more to do. I understand that, and we shall keep up the pressure all the way. It is a pity that we did not show the same international will that we are showing now six months ago, when this could have been dealt with far more easily and when we could have managed to get together exactly the right type of international co-operation that we needed. This country was taking a lead throughout that time.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Has my right hon. Friend seen the disturbing report in today's issue of The Journal of Newcastle, using figures compiled by the Northern Development Company, that we are losing five manufacturing jobs in the northern region for every one
    332
    being created? I therefore welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has forced the issue of jobs and growth to the top of the European agenda, but I urge him to go further and please his friends in the north by working with the French and the Germans to forge a consensus around new Keynesian economic and financial policies.
    The Prime Minister: We should do what is sensible for the long-term strength of the economy. There are three essential elements to the economic policy that we have outlined, which I believe to be in the interests of the north as well as of the rest of the country. The first is an end to the disastrous boom and bust of the Conservatives. Interest rates at 15 per cent. for a year or more and manufacturing output falling by 7 per cent. —that is the Conservative record. The first thing is to end that boom and bust by the new fiscal and monetary rules.
    The second thing is the new investment that we need, particularly in education, skills and technology—the Conservatives are opposed to it—because that investment raises productivity. The third thing, which has been of particular value in the north-east, is the new deal, which tackles social exclusion. All those measures are opposed by the Conservatives; all of them are in the interests of the north-east economy. We shall have difficult times, but we shall be in a better position to weather those difficult times if we take the right decisions for the long-term strength of the economy.
    Sir David Madel: Will the Prime Minister confirm that nobody still requiring medical treatment has been taken off national health service waiting lists?
    The Prime Minister: People who are on national health service waiting lists and require medical treatment are dealt with in the normal way. I am not aware of any change at all to that practice.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to tell my constituents who live around Wembley stadium about his discussions with the president of FIFA earlier this week? Will he assure us that Mr. Blatter did not leave these shores without being fully aware that England, in its bid to stage the world cup, has some of finest club grounds anywhere in Europe, and that Wembley stadium will be the finest new national stadium anywhere in the world?
    Will the Prime Minister confirm that our Government will do everything in their power to ensure that not only the national stadium but all the transport infrastructure necessary for people to get there safely and securely are ready on time, in order that nothing stops football coming home in 2006?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. There is a £300 million redevelopment project at Wembley. Wembley will be the finest stadium anywhere in the world. Mr. Blatter made it clear that, although he obviously recognised the strong case for an African country hosting the 2006 world cup, given the right facilities and infrastructure to do so, he also recognised England's very powerful case—with the finest stadiums in the world, massive new investment going into those stadiums and, as he pointed out, England of course being the motherland of football.
    Mr. William Hague: Since last week's Question Time, Ernst and Young has predicted

    333
    that 500,000 manufacturing jobs will be lost in the next two years and the CBI has said that business optimism is at its lowest for 18 years. Does the Prime Minister still think, "Crisis, what crisis?"
    The Prime Minister: I still think, as I said last week, that what is important is to get the issue in balance. Third quarter growth figures just reported show an annual rate of growth of 2.5 per cent. Since this Government came to power, 400,000 net new jobs have been created.
    I agree that there will be a slowdown. I agree, too, that we are inevitably affected by what is happening around the world. I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union have all downgraded their growth forecasts for next year. We will be affected by that. The best way of getting through that difficulty is to hold firm to strong fiscal and monetary rules and the additional investment in education and our public services—not to cancel Bank of England independence or that investment, which is his policy; that would simply lead us back to boom and bust.
    Mr. Hague: Well, I am glad that the Prime Minister has begun to realise that there is a problem. Business optimism may be at an all-time low, but Government complacency has so far hit an all-time high. A job is being lost every 10 minutes, and the Prime Minister has been inventing a new excuse every two minutes. The CBI has called for a cut in interest rates. We have called for a cut in interest rates. Even the Chief Secretary has been calling for a cut in interest rates. Will the Prime Minister instruct the Chancellor to announce when he comes to the House next week a change in policy sufficient for the Bank of England to cut interest rates by a full 1 per cent.?
    The Prime Minister: I assume that we just heard the right hon. Gentleman's policy announcement that he wants us to scrap Bank of England independence. Half the Conservative Members are nodding their heads and the other half shaking them. As I told the right hon. Gentleman last week, and as I repeat today, all international institutions have downgraded their growth forecasts. However, as I also told him last week, a net 400,000 additional jobs have been created. His alternative, cancelling investment in schools and hospitals next year and cancelling Bank of England independence, would be a disaster for the British economy. When his policies were last implemented, interest rates were at 15 per cent. for a year or more and our schools and hospitals did not have the investment that they needed. That may be the right hon. Gentleman's policy to weather these difficulties; it is not ours.
    Mr. Hague: Businesses in this country need a change of policy from the Government, not a history lesson from the Prime Minister. I can tell the Prime Minister that there is a serious problem out there, the economy is heading in the wrong direction, and the Government now have limited time to do something about it. Will he now put in place the conditions for lower interest rates, and does he realise that unless he does so he will have been fiddling with the voting system while jobs burn?
    The Prime Minister: First, may I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that interest rates are coming down?
    334
    Secondly, with the coming slowdown and the world economic situation that I have described to him, our choice is to adopt either the policies that we have adopted or the policies that he advocates. The question therefore is: is scrapping Bank of England independence the right thing for the economy? We say no. We do not have a policy from the Conservatives—or rather, we hear two inconsistent policies at the same time from them.
    We believe that in the circumstances that I have described, it is sensible to put extra investment into our schools, our transport, law and order and the health service. What is the right hon. Gentleman's policy? As far as we can find out from his shadow Chancellor, it is to cancel that spending. That is wrong. The third part of our policy is to keep in place the new deal, which is giving young and long-term unemployed people the chance to get into work. The right hon. Gentleman's policy is to cancel that.
    Those are the choices. Are those policies—Bank of England independence, strong fiscal and monetary rules, extra investment in our schools and hospitals, and the new deal for the unemployed—the right ones? We say that they are—and we still have not had an answer out of the right hon. Gentleman as to what he proposes.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government remain fully committed to the introduction of the working families tax credit, and that such a policy, alongside the national minimum wage, is crucial to the low-paid in constituencies such as mine? Does my right hon. Friend not find it incredible that at Question Time on Monday last week, the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security advocated cutting that tax credit before we have even introduced it?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has, of course, rightly corrected me. I said that the Opposition had not said what their policies were, but they have made one very specific policy commitment. They have said that their answer to the economic crisis—the Leader of the Opposition looks puzzled; he should check on what his shadow Ministers are saying. The Opposition have now said that they would cancel the working families tax credit.
    The vast bulk of that would be family credit for 800,000 families. Working families tax credit will mean that from next October, low-income families, if there is anybody working in the family, will have a minimum income of £180 per week, and they will be able to have an income of £220 per week before paying tax. For some of the poorest income-earning families that will be a £23 a week incentive to get into work. The Conservatives are saying that we should cancel that.
    What possible response is it to any economic difficulties to say that the price has to be paid by low-income families who need help to get back into work? Since the right hon. Gentleman has not used up his quota of questions, he should get up and tell us whether he stands by his shadow Minister, or whether he disagrees with him.
    Sir Raymond Whitney: Is the Prime Minister aware that when General Pinochet handed over to the democratic government of President Aylwin,

    335
    the Chilean people decided to draw a line under their turbulent past? Does he understand that the crass way in which the British Government have handled Mr. Pinochet's latest visit to this country is threatening democratic stability in Chile and damaging British interests?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's question is based on a misunderstanding of what has happened. The judicial process has not involved the Government issuing warrants for arrest. That is done by the Spanish authorities through Interpol to the British magistrates, who take it from there. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's question is misjudged and wrong.
    Mr. John McAllion: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the end of this month, the BBC—through its agent, Television Licensing—will withdraw from hundreds of pensioners in Dundee their entitlement to concessionary television licences because, it says, they no longer qualify following changes to the local council's house letting policy? Does he agree that the question of who is to blame for this matters not at all when set against the disgraceful reality that frail and elderly pensioners—who have done nothing wrong—are now facing a surcharge of £96 which they cannot afford and which they should not be asked to pay?
    Will my right hon. Friend use his influence with the BBC to ensure that all existing concessions are preserved; more importantly, will he instruct my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to initiate an immediate review of the dog's breakfast of concessionary television licences so that some sanity and justice for the pensioners can at last be brought to bear on another mess that we inherited from the Tories?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has particular concerns about the way in which the scheme is operating for some of his constituents in Dundee. All Members of Parliament know that the way the concessionary scheme operates is an aching and continual grievance that pensioners feel. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has recently announced that the scheme—including the concessionary television licence—will be reviewed next year by an independent review panel. That will report by the end of July 1999, when we will consult on the proposals and on how the scheme can be improved.
    We need to be aware that in proposing changes to the concessionary licence scheme, people will never want to lose money through it; and that if everyone gained the same amount, it could be very expensive. That is why the system needs to be looked at as a whole, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: What contacts has the Prime Minister had with Lord Jenkins to discuss the recommendations of his commission for fiddling the voting system?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept in any way what the hon. Gentleman says. I have discussions with Lord Jenkins, as I have with lots of people. However, most people think that it is entirely sensible to proceed as we are so that we can get a proper report on an alternative to
    336
    the present system, which people can then discuss. If the Conservatives do not want to be a part of the debate, that is up to them. They opted out of the constitutional debate on Scotland and Wales, but were then forced to accept it. They have opted out of the debate on the House of Lords now. They are wrong—it is sensible to have the debate.
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the intention of the Government to introduce a Food Standards Agency, despite the rumours and speculations emanating from so-called informed sources?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can certainly confirm that. The establishment of a Food Standards Agency is a commitment by the Government which we intend to honour and carry out. My hon. Friend will know that we must put our legislative programme together taking account of all the various issues. However, we remain committed to doing it as quickly as possible. We all know the reason why we are having to set up an independent Food Standards Agency: because the party of BSE and E. coli never took the decisions necessary—but we will.
    Mr. James Paice: Last month, unemployment—according to the statistics used by the previous Government—rose. [Interruption.] Went down, rather. However, according to the figures that the Government now use, unemployment increased. Which one is right?
    The Prime Minister: That question was muddled from beginning to end. On the International Labour Organisation count, there was a marginal increase; on the benefit count, there was a decrease. Since we came to office, there has been a substantial decrease. All I am telling the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues about unemployment is that it is important to get it in balance. New jobs are still being created the whole time. Faced with the world economic downgrading of forecasts of growth, the economic financial crisis and the slow down, the question is: what are the right policies? We believe for example that cancelling the new deal would have a disastrous effect on unemployment.
    Mr. Stephen Day: You have said that four times.
    The Prime Minister: That is because at some point I hope to get a response from the Opposition and to find out whether they are in favour. I agree that there should be an economic debate and argument, but the Conservative party would be in a better position to conduct that debate and argument if it had some serious policy position of its own; it does not.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the proposal of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to call a meeting in Barnsley on 10 November to discuss the distribution of lottery funds in the former coalmining areas? Records show that we have lost out considerably as regards those funds. The meeting is welcome, but it must be meaningful. Will he impress on the Secretary of State the fact that, following the loss of culture and sporting

    337
    facilities and of jobs and job opportunities, there is every justification for the miners and mining communities requesting that meeting; and will he give it his blessing?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I am delighted that the meeting is taking place; of course, it was organised by the Government. My hon. Friend will know that the coalfields task force, which the Government established, said in its report in June that an increased share of lottery proceeds
    338
    had a significant party to play in helping to regenerate the coalfield areas. Obviously, we will do what we can to ensure that any lottery moneys that come into those areas help to regenerate them. New deal money, too, will help by giving retraining and re-skilling opportunities to many of those people who have lost their jobs to industrial restructuring. That is an important part of the Government's programme which, as ever, is opposed by the Opposition.

Welfare Reform
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission Madam Speaker, I should like to set out the next phase of the Government's plans to reform the welfare state and to deal with the annual uprating of benefits.
When we came to power, we faced two huge challenges—to raise standards in education and to reform the welfare state. Today, we rise to the challenge of welfare reform. Today, we put words into action.
Welfare reform is essential because many people are poorer than they need be, many are dependent on benefits when they need not be, and others are neglected when they should not be. Our central objective is to provide work for those who can and security for those who cannot. Our plans will be based on our belief in fairness, will give greater help to those with the greatest needs, and will ensure that benefits go only to those who are entitled to them. All reforms will be undertaken after consultation.
The vast majority of people who responded to the principles and success measures that we set out in the Green Paper earlier this year endorsed them, and I am happy to reaffirm them today. I have placed in the Library a copy of the list of respondents. What I announce today will be the first of a series of announcements that will form the basis of legislation during this Parliament, beginning early next year. Legislation will take effect over a number of years, but all existing claimants who are eligible for their benefits when the changes are introduced will be protected.
Today, we are publishing three documents to show how we are putting the principles that we set out into practice. The first is a document that shows what we have done so far on welfare reform—the new deal, child care, the working families tax credit—the principles that guide our reforms and the new measures that we are planning.
The second document sets out our plans for a single gateway, a something-for-something deal for those out of work that will change the culture of the welfare state. The third is a consultation document on our plans to reform disability benefits to give more help to those in greatest need and to tackle the abuses in the current system.
On the benefits uprating, I can announce today the largest ever increase in child benefit. As a result of the uprating, child benefit will rise from next April by £2.95 to £14.40 a week. That represents real security for our children provided by the Government. I can also announce new help for the poorest pensioners in the introduction of a minimum income guarantee. The poorest pensioners will receive a minimum of £75 a week and pensioner couples will receive £116.60. Again, that represents real security provided by the Government for today's pensioners.
Most national insurance benefits will increase in line with the retail prices index—3.2 per cent. Means-tested benefits will generally increase by 2.1 per cent. in the normal way. I have placed in the Vote Office the details of the uprating of benefits.
We have plans for a single gateway to the benefit system for people of working age. When I looked at the way in which the Department of Social Security handed out money, I was amazed to see that people of working
340
age could receive benefits without even having to turn up for an interview and without being given any help in finding work. That will change.
Through the £195 million for the new deal for disabled people, the £190 million for national introduction of the new deal for lone parents and the first ever national child care strategy, we have created new opportunities for people to work. We are ensuring, through the new minimum wage and the working families tax credit, that work pays.
We believe that, in return, it is reasonable that people of working age—lone parents, the unemployed and people claiming incapacity benefits—should be required to attend an interview to discuss their options for work. There will, of course, be people—such as the terminally ill—for whom an interview would clearly be inappropriate and for whom the rule would not apply.
We are not forcing people into work, but the interviews will give real opportunities to people who have been written off by the system. Our plans will create a fundamental change in culture. People will no longer ask of the system, "What can you do for me?" They will ask, "What can I do to help myself?" We will improve the quality of advice that we give as we learn from the new deal. We will proceed carefully, starting with pilots. The full scheme will be in place in April 2000.
Similarly, in disability benefits, we aim to provide work for those who can, and security for those who cannot. When the severely disabled are not receiving the help that they need, when 1 million disabled people say that they want to work but are not being given the chance, when a quarter of men over 60 are on incapacity benefit because the previous Government used it as a way in which to hide the unemployment figures, we know that the system has to change.
We promised in the Green Paper that disabled people should receive the support that they need to lead a fulfilling life with dignity; we shall keep that promise. The foundation for all that we do is an unshakeable commitment to comprehensive civil rights for disabled people to ensure that those people are respected not only in the workplace but in all areas of life.
We need to do more. Today, I can announce a £30 million programme, extra to the new deal, of new help for disabled people seeking work. We also want to improve disability benefits. Disabled people with the greatest needs are not receiving the support that they need, whereas others are receiving support that they should not. People disabled young in life with no hope of work receive so little through the severe disablement allowance that 70 per cent. of them have to claim income support. Disabled people on low incomes who need day and night care do not receive enough help to meet their extra needs, and young children with little mobility receive no recognition from the system. Meanwhile, claims to disability living allowance are not always supported by medical evidence. Some people have been awarded benefit for life even though they have conditions that are expected to improve.
Today, we set out for consultation proposals to provide more help for the most severely disabled people in greatest need and action to ensure that disability benefits go to the right people. First, we propose, for new claimants, to change the system of support to congenitally disabled people and others disabled young in life so that

341
they receive greater help. People aged 20 and over can already qualify for incapacity benefit, if they have worked, or for income support. Severe disablement allowance will no longer be available for them.
However, many young people disabled before they were 20 have little hope of work. Today, I can announce that we will give them the biggest ever rise in support, with an extra £25 a week in benefit.
We propose a fundamental reform to incapacity benefit for future claimants only. The benefit is meant to be for people who are unable to work, yet the number of claimants has risen threefold over the past 20 years, at a time when the nation's health has been improving. We are concerned that the benefit is being abused as an enhanced early retirement subsidy.
For future claimants, we will discourage the use of incapacity benefit as an early retirement subsidy. People who have a private pension or health insurance payment of more than £50 will receive less support. Every pound of private income that they have in excess of the £50 limit will reduce their benefit by 50p. We will restore the benefit to its original purpose as an insurance benefit for people who have worked. Too often, it has been abused as a more generous form of support for the long-term unemployed.
We will strengthen the link between work and benefit, and only people who have worked and paid recent contributions before the claim will be eligible for the benefit. We will reform the all work test, so that those who claim benefits have to give evidence of their work prospects. For the first time, we will have information on the work that disabled people can do
We want to improve the provision for disabled people with the greatest needs. We will provide real security for the poorest disabled people with the highest care costs. Today, I can announce a disability income guarantee that will give £129 a week to a single person and £169 to a couple. The guarantee will be extended to three and four-year-olds so that a couple with one child on income support and disability living allowance with the highest care needs will get at least £199 a week. For the first time, we will also extend the higher rate of disability living allowance mobility component, worth an extra £35 a week to all three and four-year-old severely disabled children.
The benefit integrity project, which we inherited from the previous Government, has failed. It caused a lot of anxiety to disabled people, so we will cancel it, and in its place we will introduce a new system for reviewing claims to disability living allowance and attendance allowance that is both fairer and more sensitive. It will work in the interests of disabled people.
The changes will generate £ ¾ billion in long-term savings; but even with the changes, real-terms spending on disabled people will continue to rise in the long run. The reforms do not affect the comprehensive spending review plans announced by my right hon. Friend Chancellor in July. It is quite right that, as our society gets wealthier, the amount that we spend on the most vulnerable should increase; but benefits must go to those for whom they were intended. We must give the most help to those in the greatest need, and the system must be affordable.
342
The structural changes that I have announced today will deliver significant savings over the longer run, but they will do so by ensuring that the greatest help goes to those in the greatest need and that benefits go only to those for whom they were intended. We want to provide work for those who can, and security for those who cannot.
Today, for the first time, we will provide real security, with record levels of child benefit. The changes are good news for those out of work, who will be given better advice and opportunities to work, but bad news for those who abuse the system or try to claim benefits to which they are not entitled.
Today, we are showing our determination to modernise the welfare state and reshape it for today's world, so that it provides opportunities for all those who want to work, and delivers security to all those who need it. I commend the proposals to the House.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in letting me see his statement earlier, albeit only a little earlier. I would probably have learnt more by simply reading the Evening Standard, which carried a full, almost blow-by-blow account of the statement before he stood up to make it. That is yet another example of how the Government want to manipulate the House and use it to their own ends.
The Secretary of State said that he would rise to the challenge. I seem to recall that, with the previous big Green Paper on welfare reform, we had exactly the same rising to the challenge. There seems to be an awful lot of rising to the challenge but far too few challenges are really being met en route.
The Secretary of State was very long on a series of issues that seem, in many senses, to be relaunched, reissued and rehashed. Minimum income for pensioners has already been stated at least twice, and perhaps even three times, and the same applies to the uprating of child benefit.
Do the Government have plans to tax child benefit, as endless leaks in the newspapers suggest? Perhaps he would like to answer that question once and for all.
There have also been further leaks to the press about taking away child benefit from parents of 16 to 18-year-olds and giving it directly to those in higher education. Will he perhaps answer that once and for all?
There are, of course, important points on the disabled and on the gateway to benefit, which I will come to, but the reality is that, as usual, little has changed. There has been a lot of relaunching of clichés and a reannouncement of stuff from the past.
I turn to the main announcements that the Secretary of State has made today in his documents. On "The Gateway to Work", clearly, the Government have now decided that everyone should be eligible for work at least at the interview stage. The Opposition are not, in principle, opposed to that concept. [Interruption.]
The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), should be very careful because it was she who said:
"There is an authoritarian behavioural requirement for jobseekers".

343
She said that the jobseeker's allowance was
"illiberal in what is meant to be a democratic state."—[Official Report, 10 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 109.]
Either she has changed her mind about jobseeker's allowance or become illiberal, authoritarian and anti-democratic.
When we introduced jobseeker's allowance, we were attacked by the then Opposition, who are now the Government. I assume that they now accept the great success of jobseeker's allowance and intend to apply it further, but serious questions remain with regard to the concept of the gateway. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would answer some of them.
Paragraph 10, page 10 of "Principles into Practice" mentions that certain categories of people, such as the recently bereaved, single parents with very young children and others, will not be required to take part in immediate interviews for work. What does "immediate" mean? Exactly how long a gap does the Secretary of State envisage there being? Who will adjudicate as to who fits into those categories? The statements are very vague. He must have some idea in his own mind of exactly what that means. [Interruption.] Labour Members laugh because they like the general, but do not like the particular.
The Secretary of State made a bold statement on dependency and wishing to reduce it, but the more the Government move towards means testing, the greater dependency there will be. For example, in paragraph 21, page 16 of "Principles into Practice", there is a clear signal that the Government will apply a means test on occupational and personal pensions; for example, incapacity benefit is reduced for new claimants. Exactly how does that fit in with the right hon. Gentleman's reduction of dependency?
Does not the Government's statement about reducing dependency ring hollow given the working families tax credit that they are to introduce, which will massively, by their own statement, increase dependency? Does the Secretary of State not agree that, on the Treasury's statement, even someone on £38,000 a year will be moved into dependency directly as a result of that programme, so will the Government now admit that that they are beginning to attack the contributory principle and that what they intend to do—[Interruption.] As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just said, they intend ultimately to abolish it—those were his words just now on the Bench. He intends to get rid of it, so will the Government now admit that that is what they are engaged in.
The Government refer in the document to the need to pilot some of the programmes. Does the Secretary of State admit that his lone-parent pilot programme was a clear disaster? The Government included no control pilots in it. Will he now accept that, unless he includes control groups in pilot projects, those, too, will be a disaster, just like his nationwide launch of the lone-parent pilot?
Serious questions need to be addressed. Will the Secretary of State specify what fall-out rate from the return to work is acceptable in these programmes and what the targets are for benefit savings? Will he also specify what the target is for the number that the Government intend to get back into work?
Finally, in "Principles into Practice", the Government state:
"at the point of change, no one loses from the reforms we are making."
344
What does that mean? Clearly, there will be losers. What does the Secretary of State actually mean? [Interruption.] Labour Members laugh again—the particular and the general, the same old rule. Nice clear statements are what are required. Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer those questions and many others, it will become apparent over the next few weeks and months that he has missed another opportunity.
For the most part, the announcement is a rehashing of what has been and gone, a statement of the general, and of yet more consultation documents. There has not been much decision making and serious decisions have yet to be made—yet again, a missed opportunity.
Mr. Darling: The only missed opportunity is the hon. Gentleman's. I listened carefully to him, but I still do not know whether he is for or against anything that we have proposed. In the five minutes at his disposal, he raised several points of detail, but on the points of principle—our reform of incapacity benefit and our proposals to get people into work, to encourage more people to take opportunities available to them and to help those who are most severely disabled—he had not a single word to say.
Let me deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman did make, such as they were. As I understand it, the Conservative party is now committed to getting rid of the working families tax credit.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Not true.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman says, "Not true." He said so at the last Question Time. That is the single policy that the Opposition have set out. The working families tax credit ensures that work will pay. For many people who are trapped on benefits, one of the problems of the past was that work did not pay. The working families tax credit will get more help to people and will encourage them to get off benefit and into work.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the new deal for lone parents, complaining that we should have done more piloting or had more control groups. That is a bit rich coming from a party that is against the whole thing. The Conservatives believe that the new deal is wrong, and they would leave people confined to benefits. I strongly believe that the new deal is a success. Nine out of 10 lone parents who have been interviewed have joined the new deal, which shows how much they wanted to take the opportunities available.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a couple of points of detail. First, we have made it clear that we must be sensitive when we introduce interviews that will be conditional on someone receiving benefit. It would be inappropriate to hold them immediately after a bereavement, and I am glad to have the opportunity to say so. I will happily discuss with the hon. Gentleman the length of time that he might think reasonable. However, we are rightly saying that we will be sensitive about how we handle these matters. Our objectives are to help people and to give them opportunities denied for years by the Conservatives.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked what we meant when we said that existing beneficiaries would not be affected. We mean just that. Our radical proposals are for reform in the future. We are ensuring that we can meet the needs of the welfare state not for two or three years

345
but for two or three decades. We are reforming the welfare state: the Conservative party did absolutely nothing about it for 18 years.
Mr. Terry Rooney: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and particularly for his proposals about the single gateway, which will be a great improvement. Will he say more on his proposals for the abysmal failure that is the all work test, which clearly divided people between those picked to work or not to work, with nothing in between? That has imperilled many people. Can my right hon. Friend say how it might develop in the coming months?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. The all work test has not been successful. It tends to consign people who pass it to complete inactivity. Everyone knows that people who have an incapacity may be capable of doing some work. I am anxious to assess clearly whether someone is eligible for incapacity benefit because of a medical condition, but I am anxious, too, to assess people using a new employability test that will ask what they can do and concentrate on their capacity rather than their incapacity. In the past, far too many people have been simply written off. Many people on incapacity benefit could work, and they want to work.
Mr. Mark Oaten: The Liberal Democrats welcome several of the measures, notably the decision—for which we have long argued—to abolish the failed benefit integrity project. It is regrettable that that abolition has taken 18 months, but it is none the less welcome. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, from tomorrow, no tests will be associated with the project, and that no one else will lose benefits because of it? Can he tell us what penalties he is considering for those who fail to turn up for compulsory interviews? Will any benefits be lost? On means testing of incapacity benefit for those who have pensions, would the right hon. Gentleman not have been wiser to wait until the Government had resolved the issue of second pensions, as his measures clearly set a possible disincentive to saving? Does his package means more or less money for disabled people?
Mr. Darling: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's points in reverse order. Yes, the package clearly means more money for disabled people. The minimum guarantee, extending mobility allowance to three and four-year-olds and the new allowance for those disabled congenitally or when they were under 20 clearly represent additional help that was not otherwise available. On pensions, the important point is that, 50 years ago, very few people had insurance or occupational pension cover. Incapacity benefit was designed when such cover was not available. If we were starting from scratch—it is essential to take that approach in considering fundamental reform—we would ask whether it was sensible to pay money to some people who might have good occupational pension cover without taking that cover into account. With the £50 disregard, the first £50 is ignored, and after that there is a 50 per cent. taper, so people with an occupational pension or insurance cover will always be better off.
I do not agree that it might have better to wait for a further announcement. Part of the problem with welfare reform is that it is tempting to wait for the next
346
announcement because one thus avoids taking all sorts of difficult decisions. At some stage, one must press on with firm proposals.
The hon. Gentleman asked about interviews. He knows that, to receive benefit, people have to sign up to a host of conditions. An important one will be that someone has to agree to come to an interview. I stress that there is a world of difference between that and telling people that they must take a job. We say that in the new deal for the young unemployed but not for lone parents. Nine out of 10 lone parents who came for interview liked what they saw and joined the new deal.
On the benefit integrity project, I cannot give a commitment that everything will change tomorrow morning. We have already made changes to remove some of its worst excesses which caused difficulties in the summer last year. I want to ensure that we have a system that gets benefits right from the start. Almost one third of disability living allowance claimants did not have apparent evidence to justify the award. That situation cannot continue. Equally, the trouble with the benefit integrity project is that it has removed people from benefit who, on any objective view, should not have been put in that unhappy position. That is why I want to move ahead with reform to carry on improving things and remove the difficulties. All my proposals will be subject to consultation. Assuming that the consultation agrees with what we propose, we will press ahead with legislation and make the necessary changes at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Frank Field: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement, particularly those aspects which will increase help to the most disabled people, and the extension of help to younger children. I hope that I will be able to welcome the changes on the single gateway when I read more fully the proposals in his consultation document. On the consultation on changes to disability benefits, what will happen to the Government's proposals if most of the people and organisations consulted are against them? Of those people who will suffer cuts in their benefit as a result of the changes made today, will he say what proportion—[Interruption.] Well, cuts compared with what they would have gained had the current benefits remained in place. Of that group, what proportion does the Secretary of State expect to be successful in getting jobs?
Mr. Darling: I thank my right hon. Friend for his general support and acknowledge his work in the Department earlier this year, particularly in preparing the Green Paper, on whose principles and success measures we are building. The point of consultation is to listen and find out what people have to say about our proposals. Over the next few weeks, I expect that there will be points on which people will agree and others with which they disagree or on which they have better suggestions. That is the nature of consultation.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned people who are no longer entitled to benefit as a result of the changes we have made. Those are changes intended to return incapacity benefit to its original intention in relation to contributions and which relate to our proposals for a better share between individual contributions and those from the Government. I believe that the changes are absolutely right in principle, but I repeat that no one receiving benefit under the present system will be affected. It would be

347
wrong to disturb arrangements that have been made and which have been proceeded with in good faith. These are all changes based on the future.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about work. I believe strongly that everything the Government are doing is essential in the modern labour market, where people will have several jobs between starting out and retiring. We must ask ourselves at every stage what the Government can do to keep people in touch with the labour market, which is a fundamental part of the new deal.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State but even though he said that he is keen to keep people in touch with the labour market, I heard nothing about the growing number of people who are occupied in or seeking part-time work. One of the biggest industries in my constituency is fruit growing, which depends heavily on people who are prepared to pick as part-time workers. If the reforms are to mean anything, the transition from part-time to full-time work—or making available part-time work on terms that make it attractive—must be recognised as an indispensable part of a labour market that is increasingly dependent on people working part time.
Mr. Darling: Inasmuch as I understood the hon. Gentleman' s point, part-time work is a matter of choice for some, but I fully accept that for many people it is the only option. What we have to do and what we are doing at every stage of the labour market reform is to make it more likely that someone can be kept in touch with the labour market to find full-time or part-time work as they think appropriate.
Ms Gisela Stuart: I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State announce the cancellation of the benefit integrity project. When the Social Security Committee considered that issue in the summer we nearly recommended cancellation, but then decided not to. We felt that there was a difficulty with the claims that had been assessed and that a significant number of claims were outstanding based on inadequate information. Can the Secretary of State can tell me how many such cases are outstanding and what the transitional provisions are for that group and for the new arrangements that will be put in place?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend has raised a point that was raised by the Liberal Democrats. I shall make the position clear. The proposals I have announced this afternoon, including that in relation to the benefit integrity project, are the subject of a consultation paper that is available in the Vote Office now. Assuming the consultation succeeds and that people generally agree with what we are doing, we will proceed with the necessary changes either legislatively or, if possible, administratively.
The benefit integrity project is continuing now, but, as I explained earlier, we have removed some of the worst excesses. Cases in the pipeline will still be looked at because it is important to ascertain two things. First, we must ensure that we are getting the right benefit to those who are entitled to it and, secondly, where there is no evidence to justify it, we must do something about it. That process will continue.
348
I want to ensure that, not just in this area but across the benefits system, the DSS and the Benefits Agency spend more time getting decisions right in the first place rather than making a wrong decision and having to disturb an award that has been made, which is obviously difficult for the person receiving it. No one should be in any doubt that the process we have started by examining the benefit integrity project and disability living allowance and attendance allowance claims will continue. We will remove the aspects causing the most problems, but we will not return to the situation that existed before April 1997 when absolutely nothing was being done about the fact that far too many people were getting the wrong benefit.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State may recall that, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, in May, the Social Security Committee recommended that the benefit integrity project should be put on probation for six months. I am sure that it is a matter of delight for the House that the Secretary of State has put it to death this afternoon. That is welcome. The right hon. Gentleman rightly made great play of the fact that existing benefits and payments would be protected and that changes to benefit levels would only come in the future. Does that apply to disability living allowance claimants who currently hold life awards?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He will know, as many hon. Members do, that the concept of a life award within the DSS is misleading. Although we have called them life awards, they are not life awards. We have always had the right to review someone's entitlement to an award. I want to change that situation so that people know whether they will receive a benefit for a long period. It is also important that we constantly review people's entitlement so that, if their condition gets worse, we take account of that and perhaps pay them more, and if it gets better, we take account of that as well.
In the minority of cases in which the condition will not improve, it is important that we get away from a situation in which we give awards and then abandon the person, who may well be receiving the wrong amount of help.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: When he refers to keeping in touch with the labour market, is my right hon. Friend aware that in some areas in Britain, especially the coalfields, where all the pits were closed in the miserable years of the Tory Government, there is not much of a labour market? Will the people who do the interviewing be sensitive to the fact that there are not many jobs available?
Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that many disabled people work in Remploy factories, which are running into serious trouble in respect of orders, principally from the Ministry of Defence and so on? If my right hon. Friend wants those disabled people to continue in work, it would be helpful—and it would be symbolic for him as he carries through this reform—to ensure that disabled people do not lose their jobs in Remploy factories. Some steps will have to be taken

349
in that regard. It would not be a bad idea if my right hon. Friend doubled the number of Remploy factories for the increasing number of disabled people who want to work.
Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities have announced today extra help to enable disabled people to get into work. That will be welcome.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the coalfields. The Government's objective is to create the right economic conditions to ensure sustainable economic growth everywhere, including the coalfields. The difference between what happens under this Government and what happened under the previous Government is that as a result of the new deal, rather than abandoning people once they are unemployed, we do everything that we can to put them back in touch with the labour market. I fully accept the point that my hon. Friend makes; that in large parts of South Yorkshire, for example, which were devastated in the late 1980s, we need to do more to help right across the board. We need to ensure not only that someone has the right skills and training but that opportunities exist. That is why the Government's approach to welfare reform and economic reform is that the two go very much hand in hand.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Can the Secretary of State be a little more clear about what he has in mind with regard to the single gateway and his changes to incapacity benefit? Does he envisage one level of benefit for people who are on incapacity benefit now and people claiming income support or unemployment benefit? Will there be one level of benefit for different types of claimant, as there is in other countries that have introduced similar arrangements to those which the right hon. Gentleman proposes?
With regard to the all work test, are we to assume that that test will apply to those people at present on incapacity benefit? Even though they may have problems with mobility, they can nevertheless be deemed able to do a desk job and required to do some such work. Although they have a disability, they can still be part of the work force.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady is right. There are many people on incapacity benefit who could do some work. It may be different from what they have done in the past, and the object of a new employability test is to assess what they can do. There is nothing in the all work test that forces anyone to do anything. It is designed to provide help to enable people to work if they are able to do that.
The hon. Lady asked about the single gateway and a single benefit. There is nothing in what I said this afternoon that suggests a single benefit. We have a number of benefits, as the hon. Lady will know. The whole point about the single gateway is that, for the first time, people will be treated as individuals, rather than as part of a category. We want to ensure that all those of working age who enter the benefits system are asked what
350
we can do to help them get back into work, such as improve their training, rather than simply being handed a benefit cheque.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about benefits for people with disabilities, especially because of the number of young people who will now be involved. However, some of my constituents are concerned about the merit of some of the medical examinations: they feel that they are very short and not of a particularly high quality. Can that be tested? Secondly, on the question of appeals, which I know are not a matter for my right hon. Friend and which must, of necessity, be independent, some of my constituents are disappointed that they have to wait for 12 to 14 months, which is a very long time. Is there some general action that my right hon. Friend could take, without intervening in individual cases?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising two points with which I want to deal, the first of which involves the all work test and the nature of that test. He is right to say that a number of people have expressed concern about the nature of the test. One of the things that we have done since coming to power is to impose much higher standards on the people carrying out the tests, so that we can be satisfied that they are being conducted properly. Since being appointed, I have noticed a number of areas in which we can take further action to improve the standard of the tests.
My right hon. Friend also raised an extremely important point about appeals. To be frank, the current delay in dealing with appeals is unacceptable. However, there is good news on that front: we have set up a new appeals agency to take over from the independent tribunal service. Under the Social Security Act 1998, I acquired powers, not to make decisions—that would be quite wrong—but to lay down standards and, in particular, time limits within which appeals should be heard. I intend to pursue that vigorously.
Mr. Edward Leigh: The Secretary of State mentioned uprating child benefit, but I am sure that he would be the first to accept that middle England, which he values so highly, would thoroughly resent any uprating of child benefit being wiped out by taxation, once joint income had reached higher tax thresholds. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this simple question: does he accept that it is important to retain the principle of independent taxation when considering how and whether to tax child benefit?
Mr. Darling: Matters of taxation, independent or otherwise, are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman highlights yet again the problem of Opposition Members, which is that half of them call for more spending and half for less.
On the subject of child benefit, I forgot to answer a point raised by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), when he accused us of hiding our tax intentions. We did not hide them. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, standing at the Dispatch Box last year, made it quite clear when we introduced the increase in child benefit that he would consider whether or not there was a case for taxing child benefit—at least in respect of

351
higher-rate taxpayers. That remains our position and nothing has changed. I am glad that the Opposition are now at least welcoming the fact that we have given the biggest ever increase in child benefit, which will be of major help to every single child in this country.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: My right hon. Friend has said that all those in receipt of benefit, including lone parents, will be required to attend an interview. Will that interview be compulsory? If they do not attend, will there be any penalties imposed?
Mr. Darling: Let me explain. The conditions in respect of the new deal—that lone parents can attend—remain exactly the same; in other words, there is no compulsion. Lone parents will receive a letter inviting them to come in for an interview, once their child passes the age of five.
We are proposing a slightly different system—a new single gateway to the benefits system. It will be piloted for the first two years before being fully implemented, so that we can see how it works in practice and improve on it. We are saying to lone parents, who are not compelled to take work, that there is a world of difference between that and asking them to come in for an interview to discover what help might be available to them. Because nine out of 10 lone parents who come in for interview under the present scheme have joined the new deal, the matter is worth pursuing.
On my hon. Friend's last point, assuming that we pass the pilot stage and obtain the legislative power to do so, it is right to say to everybody that, as a condition of receiving benefit, coming along for an interview to do no more than find out what options might be available is not exactly unreasonable.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Secretary of State said that the benefit integrity project is wrong, unfair, insensitive and should be scrapped. I do not think that there is one hon. Member with a constituency case load who could possibly disagree with that judgment. Nevertheless, if the project is to be continued for the time being, will not some people continue to lose their benefit unfairly? Will they be able to apply under the new criteria? If they are successful in doing so, will their lost benefit be restored to them?
Mr. Darling: If someone's benefit is restored on appeal, they will get their benefit back. The hon. Gentleman has to accept that, currently, the problem is that some people are receiving the wrong amount of disability living allowance. Some people are receiving DLA when the medical evidence for granting it is not immediately obvious, which—in any system—is clearly unsatisfactory. People need to have confidence in the system. Moreover, if we ensure that we are paying benefit to the right people, we could do more to help them. Other people are not receiving the right amount—they are not receiving enough—because their condition has worsened or was wrongly assessed initially.
I have made it clear that the benefit integrity project has to go because too many of its aspects are flawed. We have already taken a series of measures to remove some of the worst effects, and we have removed many of the problems—particularly those that occurred last year—of which hon. Members will be well aware. I want to replace
352
the project with a system that ensures that we get the benefit right the first time. I want to ensure also that, when we review benefits, we review them to the benefit of disabled people, so that we can tell them, "If your condition has worsened, we can take account of that. If your condition has improved, we have to take account of that, too."
We want to get the system right the first time. We have inherited a situation in which, across the board, far too many decisions taken by the Benefits Agency have not been right the first time. That situation has to change.
Audrey Wise: May I welcome the extension of mobility help to three and four-year-old children, which I believe is overdue? May I also, however, express my concern about compulsory interviews for lone parents? If the interviews are intended to be helpful, why is it necessary to make them compulsory? Will my right hon. Friend confirm, quite categorically, that a compulsory interview is not the precursor of compelling lone parents either to seek or to accept employment, but that they will continue to be able to decide for themselves what is best for their children?
Mr. Darling: On the last point, nothing has changed from the situation today. I assure my hon. Friend that we have always made it clear that we are not compelling lone parents to go to work because of their particular circumstances. That position remains in future exactly the same as it is today.
My hon. Friend asked about pilots and why it is reasonable to ask people, right across the board, to come in. Let me give her one reason. On Monday, when I launched the lone parents' new deal nationally, I spoke to one lone parent who told me that she had ignored the first couple of letters she received because she thought that it was just another scheme. She turned up after receiving the third letter, was pleasantly surprised and is now about to complete training and go into work.
My point is that more people need to know what the Government are doing to help. There is a world of difference between coming in for an interview and being told what is on offer, and compelling someone to take a job—which, in the case of lone parents, we are not going to do.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I share the welcome for some aspects of the statement, which other hon. Members have already mentioned. Will some of the forms be revised so that people can more simply find their way through them? Although it has been stated that the all work test should not be a snapshot at a specific time, people are regularly refused benefit because they are experiencing a degree of remission at a specific time. I know of one case, for example, in which a medical examiner not only rejected a person's claim for benefit but said that he was unfit to take a job as a civil servant. There is a need to fine-tune the system both upwards and downwards.
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I made it clear in reply to an earlier question that I do think that the all work test needs to be refined. I certainly agree that the test would not be a success if a snapshot were taken on a particular day when a person's condition might be much worse or better than usual. It is important to get the whole picture.

353
The hon. Gentleman makes an exceptionally good point about the forms. I am pleased to be able to tell him that we are already on the case, doing what we can to simplify them. We are already running some pilot projects which will make it much easier to claim benefit. We are using modern technology and simplified forms, and bringing forms together so that people do not have to fill in three or four to apply for benefit. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good case, and I hope to be able to come back to the House in the not too distant future with some good news on that issue.
Mr. Roger Berry: I warmly welcome most of my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he acknowledge that, over the past three years, the number of people claiming incapacity benefit has declined significantly, not least because of the restrictions on eligibility introduced by the previous Government? Will he reassure the House that he has no plans to extend the qualifying period for incapacity benefit?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend asks about incapacity benefit and the qualifying period. I said that we are restoring incapacity benefit to its original purpose so that there is a more recent link between work and receiving that benefit. He also asked whether we want to make any further changes. I am not sure whether he has the consultation document yet, but the changes are fully set out in it. I think that I can reassure him on that point.
Mr. Steve Webb: I am sure that the Secretary of State would not have wanted to give a misleading impression, so will he confirm that when he said that pensioners would be guaranteed an income of £75 a week, he was unaware of the 500,000 pensioners with savings who will have to live on less than £75 a week?
Mr. Darling: It is perfectly true that there are pensioners with savings—some have modest savings, while some have a great deal. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop carping about the minimum income guarantee. For the first time, we are giving more help to the poorest pensioners—more than they would ever have got under the previous Government. The Liberal Democrats should welcome that, not carp about it.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: In view of the need to ingrain in our social security practice some sense of balance between rights and responsibilities, most people would think it perfectly fair and reasonable that when people exercise their right to claim benefit, they should attend an interview to talk about their duty to seek work. Given the emphasis on improving the interface between social security and employment, is the logic that one day at local level we shall have integrated employment and benefit offices? Are the Government considering that for people of working age?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend may be aware that that is something in which the Government are extremely interested and which we intend to pursue more fully. The new deal attempts to do just that—to bring together the Employment Service and the social security system.
354
The single gateway is an acceptance of the fact that the public, quite rightly, do not distinguish between the different Departments of Government. They expect the Government to provide help. As my hon. Friend rightly says, if the Government are to provide help, it is the responsibility of those seeking benefit or other support at least to find out what options are available. I for one will be happy to defend that proposal because it is entirely right and based on the correct principle.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the Secretary of State please clarify whether people who are currently receiving incapacity benefit will be called for an employability test, or will it be only new claimants? Also, will pensioners who have a minimum income guarantee continue to have access to housing benefit, council tax benefit and income support?
Mr. Darling: As I made clear, the single gateway system will be piloted, but we want to ensure that people who are not in full-time work and who are receiving benefits attend an interview. Where that is inappropriate, perhaps because of care responsibilities, we need to be sensitive. I do not for one moment belittle the hon. Lady's point. There are many details on which we want to consult, but I believe that the principle that someone should attend an interview to find out what help might be available at an appropriate time remains the right one.
Mr. Chris Pond: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that, in my constituency—as in many others—we have been carrying out a consultation process with disabled people about the way in which the current system operates? I assure him that those groups to which I have spoken will welcome his statement—especially the announcement about the abolition of the benefit integrity project. However, can he confirm that although, in two thirds of disability living allowance cases, there is no information to justify the amount of the award being paid, that is an indication, not of fraud, or even of overpayment, but simply of the non-availability of that information? Will he reassure people on DLA that there is no intention—as there was under the BIP—perhaps to hound them for potential fraud?
Mr. Darling: It is very important to distinguish between those people who defraud the social security system—which we all know happens—and those people who, through no fault of their own, have ended up with the wrong benefit. Since the week when I arrived in the Department in July, I have been worried that the systems that we have inherited are far from satisfactory. They need to be reformed to ensure that we get benefits right. It is far better that we ensure that a person receives the right benefit from the start, because otherwise, by the time the system catches up, they have proceeded so far down the road that it causes all sorts of difficulties when we try to put matters right. We are determined, therefore, to place far more emphasis than there has ever been on getting decisions right first time.
Mr. Quentin Davies: The Secretary of State studiously—many people will think, disingenuously—avoided the phrases "means test" or "benefit reduction". Does the right hon. Gentleman agree,

355
however, that, if incapacity benefit above £50 is means tested in future, first, a lot of future claimants will lose incapacity benefit to which they were entitled, and for which they believe they have paid through their national insurance contributions; and, secondly, the Government will once again have delivered a major blow to the principle of the national insurance system? We get a blow to the system about once a month. Why do not the Government come clean and say that their real agenda is to erode the contributory principle and the national insurance system and, ultimately, to destroy it altogether?
Mr. Darling: Although, to be fair, I believe that for much of the past 18 years the hon. Gentleman was in opposition to the Conservative Front-Bench team, he might want to reflect on the fact that the national insurance system and entitlement to contributory benefits were changed on the odd occasion during those 18 years. I believe that people realise that national insurance funds the system on a pay-as-you-go basis. It is not a fully funded system, so it is rather different from, let us say, an insurance scheme.
On the incapacity benefit changes, I believe that, in this day and age, when far more people have cover—sometimes substantial—it is entirely right that the risk should be shared fairly. The Conservatives may have pledged themselves to oppose that—which is curious given that, although they are always saying that they want to reform the welfare state, they have absolutely nothing to say on the particulars.
I believe that the change is entirely fair, and I have made it absolutely clear that the proposals are for future beneficiaries only. People on existing incapacity benefit will not be affected. The hon. Gentleman is therefore wrong on both counts. I am only sorry that at no time in the last hour have we heard a word from Conservative Members as to what they would do to reform and improve the benefit system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. That concludes the statement. We must move on.

Senator Pinochet
4.29 pm
Sir Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There has been a very significant development in the case of Senator Pinochet. The divisional court has now held that he is entitled to immunity from prosecution. The democratic Government of Chile have also made it clear that they want these proceedings to come to an end. In view of those developments, may I ask that the Home Secretary come to the House without further delay—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."] Right. I hope that, without any further delay, he will make a full statement on the Government's position. This has dragged on day after day, and we have not had a statement. It is crucial that would should have one. The issue is not answered by the Home Secretary sitting there without saying anything.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Many of us are very concerned that the court decision could result in Pinochet leaving the country without a debate in this House. I recognise that what has happened so far has been strictly in accordance with the rules. The Home Secretary was not in a position to make a statement, because the matter was sub judice. However, should there be any possibility of that former murderous dictator leaving the country, the House should be able to have a debate first.
I have noted the ruling that you gave yesterday, Madam Speaker. However, you will have noted that there have, rightly, been endless articles in the media about Pinochet and the terrible crimes that were committed when he was a dictator. It would be most unfortunate, to say the least, if, because of court rulings, Pinochet were able to leave the country on Thursday, for example, without the House being able to debate the subject. I hope that you will give that careful consideration. I make no apology for my strength of feeling and that of my hon. Friends about that murderous criminal.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you feel that, rather than the Home Secretary being asked to make a statement, it would be helpful if the Attorney-General came to the House to give us some guidance on the international implications of what has happened. Although he has made decisions in that area in a different capacity, what has happened affects our understanding of international law and the circumstances in which people can be prosecuted in one country or another, and kept in a country for that purpose.
Ann Clwyd: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday you ruled that early-day motions on the issue should be suspended. There is strong feeling in the House, and many of my hon. Friends wanted to add their names to those motions. I take it that, as the court has made a ruling and no appeal has yet been lodged, it is possible for the suspension to be lifted. I find the court ruling extraordinary. Is it a clear signal for heads of state such as Saddam Hussein that they can come here and have tea with Margaret Thatcher in future?
Madam Speaker: As the House is aware, I have no authority as far as Government statements are concerned.

357
Ministers make statements when they consider it appropriate. As the House also knows, the procedures under extradition law and the circumstances of the case involving Senator Pinochet are very complex. I understand that an appeal is pending, but I have had no time to ascertain what the legal position is now, having been in the Chair since 2.30 pm. Until I have had an opportunity to reflect on the situation, I propose to regard the case as still sub judice.
I remind the House, as I did yesterday, that I do not make rules as I go along; I uphold the rules of the House. As soon as it is possible to do so, early-day motions that have been withdrawn from the Order Paper will be returned to it, and hon. Members will be able to question Ministers.

Prostitutes' Advertisements (Public Telephone Boxes)
4.33 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to place advertisements for prostitutes in public telephone boxes; and for connected purposes
The problem of carding is localised, but severe. Corners of central London in or bordering my constituency are awash with cards, as, I understand, are parts of Brighton, Southampton, Birmingham and some other cities. To give the House an idea of the scale of the problem, British Telecom removes an average of 14 million cards each year. Ten million cards were removed in Westminster during one monitoring period between August 1996 and January 1998. One thousand boxes are carded regularly. Some boxes can display 80 cards at one time. At the absolute minimum, the cards create an appalling litter problem. More seriously, cards are becoming increasingly graphic and sexually explicit, with photographic illustrations and descriptions of services offered that stretch the imaginations even of hon. Members, who are notoriously broad-minded.
I am not a prude; I find prudery tedious. I do not want to live in a sanitised, Disneyland-type city—however pleasant Disneyland may be to visit with one's children. But nor do I want to be confronted against my will with pornography. It is not fair effectively to prevent women and children from using telephone boxes because they feel threatened by the sleazy environment that the cards create. I do not see why a child calling home on his way from school should be confronted with advertisements for golden rain, bondage and foot fetishism.
There are two ways of dealing with such cards: a comprehensive call-barring scheme, and the introduction of a criminal offence of carding, as I propose. I would greatly welcome a comprehensive call-barring scheme. I congratulate BT on its voluntary scheme, and investment in cleaning up telephone boxes. Other telephone operating companies need to come on board quickly, and the Office of Telecommunications should move swiftly to permit outgoing call-barring, blocking calls from call boxes to the telephone numbers advertised on the cards.
My Bill creates a criminal offence of carding. That will help to reduce the number of carders, since penalties can be stiffer than the average fine of £200, which is little more to carders than an occupational hazard. A new criminal offence would replace the time-consuming, cumbersome and expensive process whereby the local authority or the police must take out injunctions—even then, only after five prosecutions—by using the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertising) Regulations 1992. Westminster council alone is spending £20,000 on serving 20 injunctions at the moment. A financial and administrative burden is being placed unfairly on certain police divisions in certain local authority areas.
I am aware of the difficulties of drafting legislation on this issue, but I urge the Home Office to move swiftly and to resist partial solutions, which rely on local authority enforcement powers and may simply move the problem, particularly in areas of central London such as those that I represent, across a local authority border, from one block of streets to another.

359
I am grateful for the sympathetic response that I have received from the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry on both call-barring and criminal offence issues. I hope that we can move forward. There is clear cross-party support on the issue. More than 80 Members of Parliament have written in support of firm action to deal with the problem. Doing so would be welcomed by Members of Parliament and business, as well as by residents of corners of our cities that are afflicted by the problem.
I am conscious of the argument that action against carding may result in prostitution being pushed back on to the streets. That is a serious and valid point. Out of concern for the safety of prostitutes—they are at risk—I do not want that to happen. Indeed, the problem of sleaze in the streets that I have described would be even greater were we to return to the situation of a few years ago, when prostitutes were working the streets.
But cards in telephone boxes are not the solution to that. They are messy and offensive, and allow no choice for members of the public who wish to make a telephone call from a public box but do not want to be confronted with such pornography. We must clamp down now on the carding nuisance, and recognise that advertising may move, and may have to move, into more targeted mediums, allowing people choice, and freeing up communities such as those that I represent from a palpable and serious nuisance.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Karen Buck, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Mr. Alan Clark, Mr. Andrew Dismore and Mr. Tony McNulty.

PROSTITUTES' ADVERTISEMENTS (PUBLIC TELEPHONE BOXES)
Ms Karen Buck accordingly presented a Bill to make it an offence to place advertisements for prostitutes in public telephone boxes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 250].

Army
[Relevant documents: The Eighth Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1997–98, on the Strategic Defence Review (HC 138-I).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
4.39 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): It is an honour to open the first debate on the Army since January 1996. I intend to cover some of the important operational and staffing issues affecting the Army, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will address equipment issues in winding up.
Several hon. Members have asked about the future and form of such debates. I want to reassure the House that the Government have no plans to reduce the long-standing arrangement that three days each Session are given over to debates on service issues. I do not, however, rule out the possibility of changing the focus of each debate, to make the debates more relevant to the operational activities and structures of the armed forces themselves. I know that there is some support for that idea on both sides of the House, and the Government want to discuss the issue with those who have a view to express.
The debate comes at a time of change. Indeed, only last week the House debated the Government's long-term vision for Britain's defence. Change means building on the Army's historical strength. In last week's debate, the Army was justly commended in all parts of the House for the determination, commitment and dedication of its officers and soldiers. I am pleased to be able to pay tribute today to them, and to the sacrifices that have been made on behalf of the rest of us in this country. Our Army aims to be the best—and it is the best.
The deployment of our Army in different roles in Northern Ireland, in the Balkans, in Cyprus, and in defence diplomacy worldwide, has given it a depth of experience and a rightful reputation second to none.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of Northern Ireland, will he confirm that it is the Ministry of Defence, not the Northern Ireland Office, that is responsible for deciding whether Guardsmen Fisher and Wright can rejoin their regiment, the Scots Guards?
Mr. Henderson: I can confirm that the decision will be made by the Army Board.
When we consider the reputation of our Army all over the world, we should never forget that its effectiveness is founded upon its ethos. As I have met our troops in Northern Ireland and in Germany, and those in barracks preparing for deployment in the world's trouble spots, the strength of that ethos has been apparent to me.
There is a discipline that recognises that a battle can be won only if everyone plays his or her part in the team effort, and an integrity that acknowledges that every soldier has to impose that sense of discipline on his or her own activities in the interests of the team objectives.
There is courage—displayed in both a physical and a moral way—without which the difficult conditions of the urban jungle, the desert or the frozen mountains could not

361
be overcome. There is loyalty, which the platoon—through to brigade and division—cements into an effective force. There is selflessness, which, in the extreme, means the ultimate sacrifice of one's own life. Those are the qualities that I know inspire those who serve. Those are the qualities that count when building a reputation in peace, and when winning a battle. Those are the qualities that make our Army the best, and give it the basis to act as a force for good in this difficult world.
Mr. Paul Keetch: The Minister mentioned quality. Does he agree that the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment, based in my constituency, is one of the finest regiments in the world? He also mentioned loyalty. Does he agree that the number of books that we are now seeing by former members of the regiment are of great concern to serving and former members of the regiment? Would he once and for all destroy the myth published in a recent book that it might be Government policy to disband the regiment and start again? Will he assure me and the regiment that that is not the Government's intention?
Mr. Henderson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and any other hon. Member who wishes to refer to the quality of their local regiment—that I am proud to confirm that the quality is high throughout the British Army, and that that is built on the strength of its historic role. In relation to the publication of articles by ex-serving members, where their contracts prohibit the disclosure of certain forms of information, the Government will take every action to make sure that they are unable to engage in disclosure which could be harmful not only to their ex-colleagues but to the interests of the defence of this nation.
I want to refer now to two principal operational theatres. Our Army is currently at the highest level of operational involvement of any comparable army, with about one in four of our serving officers and soldiers involved in operations at any one time.
In Northern Ireland, the Belfast agreement represents a new start for the people of the Province. In August, I saw for myself our soldiers serving in difficult conditions in the Province. Without their efforts in places such as Drumcree—where they played a vital role in supporting the Royal Ulster Constabulary—the Belfast agreement would not have been possible. I know that this House will want to join me in paying tribute to the service men and women who have done so much to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland, and who, in all too many cases, have paid for it with their lives.
The House is aware of the important momentum for peace in the Province, which has enabled a reduction in the number of troops there. Routine military patrolling has ceased in many areas, and several security bases have been closed. Those are consistent with the current security situation, but the security forces have not lowered their guard. While a significant terrorist threat remains—as, regrettably, it does—troops will remain in Northern Ireland to support the RUC. Numbers will be returned to garrison strength only after a lasting peace has been achieved.
In other operations, the Army plays a crucial role. The UK provides the second largest force, after the United States, to the NATO-led stabilisation force in Bosnia.
362
We currently have about 5,000 troops committed to this force who are playing a vital part in enabling the Bosnian people to start rebuilding their environment. That is also true in Kosovo. I can inform the House that the British military verifiers—including 50 Army personnel, who form the UK contribution to the 2000 international verifiers required by the Holbrooke agreement—are now ready for deployment when required by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
As hon. Members will be aware, there are other important commitments that the Army has to undertake.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: When does the Minister expect the commitment in Bosnia to end? He will recall that, when troops first went there, it was for an initial period of six months, in 1993 or 1994, I think.
Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which always arises when an intervention force has to re-establish peace and build stability. Often, it is an open-ended commitment. Without the benefit of a crystal ball, it is often impossible to determine how long our armed forces will have to make such a commitment.
The important aspect of the strategic defence review is that it provides for deployment in that context. It gives us the capability to take initiatives and contribute to international efforts in places such as Kosovo for a period. Related issues, such as overstretch, must be borne in mind, because they are central to the matter the hon. Gentleman raised. Before I move on to that subject, I must mention a couple more important core activities of our Army.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced plans a year ago to increase the assistance that the Ministry of Defence provides to humanitarian de-mining. Since then, the mine information and training centre at Minley has become an important focus for awareness about anti-personnel land mines. In the past year alone, its staff have conducted liaison visits to Bosnia, Croatia, Cyprus, Laos and Cambodia.
We must always remember that, within the United Kingdom, the Army continues to provide invaluable assistance to civil authorities, with cover ranging from the disposal of wartime bombs, which happens quite regularly, to help with flood relief.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Before leaving tasks, is the Minister aware that, as part of a shift towards home defence, the Americans are establishing 170 sub-units for nuclear, biological and chemical home defence, all in the volunteer reserves? Why is that role to be taken away from the only British nuclear, biological and chemical defence regiment, which is in the Territorial Army, when it has just returned from trials in America that it passed with flying colours?
Mr. Henderson: As I will explain later, decisions have not yet been reached, and Ministers have not yet received proposals for the future of the Territorial Army. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that a review of the nation's needs as regards biological and chemical warfare is being undertaken. When the Government are in a position to make recommendations, the House will, of course, be informed of our needs in that regard.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to the Minister, who is being characteristically

363
generous in giving way. Did he have an opportunity to see the article written this week in The Times by Mr. Michael Evans, the much respected and invariably well informed defence correspondent of that publication, in which he asserted that the Territorial Army will next year have to sell drill halls to the value of £42 million to make up its budget? Is that assertion true, and, if it is, what will be the consequences for the TA if it is unable to realise enough money from the sale of property? Will there have to be further cuts in numbers?
Mr. Henderson: I know that the hon. and learned Member is always careful to trust in what he reads in the newspapers. I also know that he always tries to be helpful. No decisions have been reached on the future of the Territorial Army. I have not received any recommendations from the Army. When I do, I shall expect them to be on staffing levels and on capital assets. We need to consider how best we can utilise capital assets in the interests of organisations such as the Territorial Army, and I would be wrong not to take that into account.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait rose—
Ms Roseanna Cunningham rose—
Mr. Henderson: I am beginning to be over-generous. I shall take one more intervention; then I shall press on.
Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Before we leave the subject of the best use of Army assets, will he say what stage the tracker programme has reached? Is it appropriate for the Army to have a programme that is mounted on an armoured personnel carrier and cannot see over hills and round corners, given that battlefield reconnaissance systems such as airborne stand-off radar are available? Would he not save himself some money by not allowing those particular boys to have those particular toys?
Mr. Henderson: In the spirit of constructiveness, I should point out that the hon. Lady was—I think—referring to the tracer programme, for which there is a future. It is an important element of our capacity to redeploy—or deploy—to wherever it is necessary for our forces to move.
In the debate last week, questions were asked about the Army's structure. The depth and breadth of the Army's contribution is immense. The important changes to its structure set out in the strategic defence review are designed to ensure that it can meet its future commitments without overstretch. I tell hon. Members who raised the matter last week that I am still considering the structure of Land Command in the United Kingdom; I expect to announce the conclusions of the review shortly.
A number of other changes arise out of the SDR. In the long run, a higher level of recruitment is crucial if we are to tackle the problem of overstretch and meet our staffing targets. However, as the Defence Committee identified, other measures can help. The creation of a sixth deployable brigade and the delivery of a coherent formation readiness cycle are central to improving the Army's ability to deliver combat-ready formations in the future.
The three-year cycle will ensure that formations and units can train properly, can meet their liability to the new high-readiness joint rapid reaction forces and their
364
operational commitments, and can maintain an average operational tour interval of 24 months. That will reduce overstretch and improve the quality of life for our soldiers.
I inform the House that the new brigade will be known as 12 Mechanised Brigade. It will consist of an armoured regiment, as well as armoured and mechanised infantry, and will give the Army a potent and flexible new formation. The brigade headquarters will form at the end of next year, and the brigade will start training year in 2001. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] That is still under consideration.
The creation of a single specialist air manoeuvre brigade will integrate the proven experience of our airborne forces with the formidable capability of the attack helicopter. The new formation will be known as 16 Air Assault Brigade. The number 16 was chosen as it has a long association with the Paras, who will be providing two battalions to the new brigade.
Mr. Bob Russell rose—
Mr. Henderson: I must press on a little.
The Territorial Army preoccupied the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House during last week's debate, and it will no doubt be the focus of many speeches today. A statement will be made to the House as soon as decisions have been taken. However, Ministers have not yet received any proposals.
Mr. James Gray: A moment ago, the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that decisions had not yet been taken, because Ministers had not yet been given any advice. Am I right in thinking that, according to paragraph 102 of the strategic defence review, the only decision that has been taken about the Territorial Army is that the nuclear, biological and chemical capability will be taken away from it and given to the regular Army? If that is so, the answer that the Minister gave my hon. Friend was not entirely correct.
Mr. Henderson: I will receive proposals from the Army at a later stage that will be consistent with the commitments in the strategic defence review. I outlined the principles in last week's debate, and I will be happy to do so again today, lest anyone be unclear. The principles are as we described: that the Territorial Army should be integrated with the regular Army; that it should be relevant, fully resourced and trained for real tasks in today's world; and that, above all, it should be usable.
Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Has my hon. Friend received my written submission to the review, and will he consider meeting me soon to discuss the future of the territorial regiment in Jarrow? That regiment, a parachute regiment, ideally suits the new role for the armed forces. One must not forget the social aspect in constituencies such as mine, where the regiment makes a real contribution to the economy.
Mr. Henderson: I have received representations, and I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend or his colleagues to discuss that issue. My office has told every hon. Member who has written to me that I am prepared to see

365
local representatives, but I cannot see everyone individually, or I would be here all month; I have asked that, where there are common interests, hon. Members should come to see me in clusters. My office has made some time available in my diary for that in the coming weeks. I am happy to have such meetings, as I want to have a full knowledge of local views.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Henderson: I have been very generous, and now I will be a little bit more generous, after which I will stop being generous.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity. Perhaps his answer could save a delegation having to come to see him. I want to ask about Cumbria and North Lancashire, and the King's Own Border Regiment.
My understanding is that the proposal is to create one company in the area. It looks like we are being dealt with very badly. There is a strong case for a second company, and I would obviously like that to be in Carlisle. We should consider whether there should be detachments. In my area, there is no money to be made by selling the TA centre, because it is Carlisle castle, a grade I listed building. If we get only one company in Cumbria, could a detachment be provided in Carlisle? Of course, we would prefer two companies.
Mr. Henderson: I will consider proposals from the TA and the Army once they have been submitted. I want full consultation, so that the objectives can be discussed locally and best solutions can be proposed. Conservative Members obtained a copy of an original document last week, and waved it about the House. The officials involved in that consultative document will review all the discussions locally and then make proposals to Ministers. Until that is done, no decisions can be reached. I have an open mind on geographical matters, but not on the principles.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Henderson: I should press on now. I gave way very generously last week and have done so today, and I want to move on to the other issues. I have said that I am prepared to see any hon. Members who want to raise specific matters, possibly in clusters.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham rose—
Mr. Mike Hancock rose—
Mr. Henderson: I am not prepared to give way, and I am not moveable on that. I am going to move on.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with a wide range of procurement issues in winding up, but I should like to refer to two pieces of equipment for the Army.
The Challenger 2 tank is beginning to be introduced into service. This is a British product that is used by the British Army. When asked what he thought of the tank,
366
a soldier in the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards said to his commanding officer, "Aye, Sir, this is better than we had before". That is a clear judgment from those in the front line. That is our judgment, and it will, I believe, be the judgment of the international army community. The tank is good for the British Army, and it will be good, I believe, for our international exports; this is a top-quality product that can be sold to other armies throughout the world.
Mr. Robert Key: The hon. Gentleman is indeed being extremely generous in giving way.
There is just one problem with the Challenger 2 tank, of which the hon. Gentleman is proud and the Conservative Government were proud, too: where are the tank transporters? What has happened to the contracts that were meant to be up and running now for the tank transporters? The old ones will not carry the Challenger II, and there is still no date in prospect for the delivery of the new transporters.
Mr. Henderson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the Army is confident that it has the means to put those tanks in place in a battlefield situation. As he also knows, these matters are constantly under review. We are always looking for better ways in which to transport and, indeed, to maintain and service tanks and other equipment. That is an continuing process that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and I take as a high priority.
Mr. Hancock rose—
Mr. Henderson: I am not giving way.
The second piece of equipment to which I wish to refer is the Apache attack helicopter, another British product to be used by the British Army. Again, our troops are excited by the prospect of it being brought into service. I believe that that also augurs well for exports.
Staffing is an important matter, which was covered in last week's debate, but it is also germane to this afternoon's discussions. As the House will know, the Army is 5 per cent. understaffed. That shortfall is unacceptably high, and has led to stresses and strains on service men and women and their families.
The Government are determined to correct the problem, but it cannot be done overnight. We have already taken key steps to improve recruitment and to increase capacity at Army training facilities. As a direct result, over 1,800 more troops are under training than in May 1997, an increase of more than 16 per cent. That improvement will, I know, be welcomed by the House.
More and more people are joining the Army because they believe that it is a first-choice career. As I said in last week's debate on the strategic defence review, we are determined that the Army should be a first-choice career for a much wider group of people in our society. It should be a first-choice career for many more women, black people, Asian people and people from other ethnic groups.
Mr. John Burnett: For a very short time, I had the great privilege of serving with the Gurkhas. Will the Minister acknowledge the huge debt of honour that we owe both serving and retired Gurkhas?

367
Will he confirm that the Government will in part repay that debt by paying retired Gurkhas pensions that are fair and reasonable?
Mr. Henderson: I am happy to confirm that my view and the Government's view are the same as the hon. Gentleman's: we owe a great debt to the Gurkhas, who continue to give us support. Their pensions are determined by an arrangement with the Indian and Nepalese Governments. Pensions are at a level that is commensurate with what is appropriate as part of that agreement. I think that he will understand that, and recognise that that has to be the case.
I talk about the Army being a first-choice career for more and more people. I am also saying that we have to get highly trained staff. That is the main challenge. We have introduced specific measures to address the problem of experienced officers and soldiers leaving early. In key trades, financial retention incentives have been introduced. In other areas, cash bounties are paid to soldiers who re-enlist at the end of their service.
The strategic defence review gave the highest emphasis to investors in people. We must provide better training and education for our personnel, and I am considering how to extend our national vocational qualifications programme to all our people. I am proud that our personnel already obtain many more awards than people in any comparable organisation in the United Kingdom.
I am examining how we can modify education schemes and education support for those in higher education who may be persuaded to join the Army, and for those who are already committed to the Army but who need further support. We are confident that higher recruiting, together with a range of initiatives to improve retention, will help us to achieve our aim of full staffing in the Army by around 2004.
The strategic defence review set out a new vision for the armed forces. The Army has a crucial role in that vision, which is about looking at the world we will face in future, and being ready to play our part in upholding law and democracy. The vision is about having the right equipment to be effective in any war theatre, and about having the right support to back it up.
Above all, however, it is about having the right people—people with a binding and determined ethos, with the right attitudes, the necessary skills and the essential motivation. Those are the things that matter. Those are the qualities that make our Army the best. We should never forget or underrate the commitment of those people on our behalf. They deserve the support of the House, and I hope that they receive it today.
5.11 pm
Mr. Robert Key: It is a pleasure to debate military affairs again so soon after the two-day strategic defence review debate. I record my sincere admiration for the men and women of the British Army, their families and all the scientific and industrial civil servants and administrators who support them. I add my appreciation, too, for the growing number of dedicated contractors and suppliers, the Ministry of Defence police and the Ministry of Defence guard force.
Wherever the Army serves in the world, we are proud of it. It is in the nature of our debates that we focus on the problems of the day, and on exceptions. I do not want
368
Army personnel of any rank to think that we do not appreciate and admire their dedicated and professional role in the defence of the United Kingdom and our way of life. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) will refer to issues including recruitment when he winds up later. I know that many hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so often to hon. Members on both sides. If I may say so without sounding patronising, he has learnt his trade remarkably quickly. We are grateful to him. For the avoidance of doubt, and for the sake of readers of The Spectator, I should make it clear that this is my speech, and I believe in what I am saying. I am not just reading out someone else's words or ideas.
In order to put the Army into the broadest security context, let me examine the Prime Minister's European defence policy, a policy of some confusion and contradiction. In The Times last Wednesday, he advocated a European defence identity based on the European Union. Within minutes of the end of a two-day defence debate in the House, the Prime Minister appeared to have reversed British defence policy without telling the Defence Secretary. The Labour Government have followed the previous Government's policy of basing our defence on NATO and developing a European capability in the Western European Union. The WEU has formal agreements with NATO for the use of United States assets and intelligence and NATO's planning staff.
That was the policy both at the time of Amsterdam and of our debate last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), the shadow Defence Secretary, raised those points last week, and the Secretary of State made it clear that the position had not changed, by saying:
"We have a comprehensive view of the role of the European Union and the Western European Union, and the European security and defence identity of NATO…The challenge for the Western European Union is to take on the task that it has been given by the Amsterdam treaty and effectively to use its new powers. The challenge for the European Union is…to apply the common foreign and security policy…in Europe".—[Official Report, 19 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 974.]
There was no mention of a defence role for the European Union.
Last Tuesday, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence said:
"Britain is playing a key role in developing NATO's new strategic concept—the alliance's own SDR—to give it an equally clear vision into the next century. We are also playing an essential role in developing an effective European security and defence identity in NATO."—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1176]
Within minutes, however, the Prime Minister had changed all that, despite what he himself had said last year at Amsterdam when he claimed victory after the Amsterdam summit. He struck out any commitment to a merger between the WEU and the EU. He said that what matters is what works, and what works for Britain and for Europe is NATO. He also said that the Franco-German plan was
"like an ill-judged transplant".
Following the Balkan experience and the EU's failure in response to the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, can we seriously believe that anything can replace NATO in Europe? The Prime Minister went last week to PÖrtschach in Austria. There was no official communiqué of the informal gathering, but I have obtained a transcript

369
of the press conference that the Prime Minister gave on 25 October. He congratulated the Austrian presidency, and said that there were three main issues. First, there was the economic situation. Next, he said:
"Secondly, in respect of common foreign and security, there was a strong willingness, which the UK obviously shares, for Europe to take a stronger foreign policy and security role. This will arise particularly because we will be appointing two people to common foreign and security positions in the European Union in the next few months so it is something that is very much on our minds but we all agreed that it was important that Europe should be able to play a better, more unified part in foreign and security policy decisions and certainly, obviously we discussed specifically Europe closer to the people, ideas for that and subsidiarity, where there was a very strong sense that we have to push on the process that was begun at Amsterdam on subsidiarity and get that implemented. As I say, I thank the Austrians very much indeed for hosting this summit and for organising it so well."
So that is all right. That is completely clear. We know what the Prime Minister achieved at that conference.
When, as at present, geopolitics is dominated by events outside Europe, and when European security is dominated by the crisis in Kosovo, it is probably not surprising that the Prime Minister is not focused on the evolution of European defence. He should be, however. The way he stumbled across the issue last week speaks volumes about the chasm in Labour's defence thinking after a generation of nuclear escapism—I make an honourable exemption for the Under-Secretary of State for Defence.
Few people doubt that what we loosely call Europe can achieve little militarily without NATO and the United States. The Eurocorps, a child of President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl in 1994, is paralysed by the military, philosophical and cultural differences between unlikely partners. The Secretary of State went to Portugal with other European defence Ministers in September to take a lead on Kosovo, and he was all in favour of committing ground troops. Planners could have told him that that would have required 200,000 troops, cruise missile strikes and a phased air campaign involving 400 aircraft. It would have taken a month to deliver. What really mattered was that the United States had no intention of getting ground troops involved. Europe is pretty helpless without the United States' input of heavy lift, satellite communications and intelligence.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Has my hon. Friend considered the implications for NATO of the new defence role? We are, admittedly, short of detail on that role, but what would the impact be on American and European partners who are not members of the European Union? Many of them—one in particular—would like to join the EU.
Mr. Key: Indeed I have. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing an important European dimension to the debate. The first and most practical reason why European common defence must stay with NATO is that we need the United States of America. The Prime Minister needs to think about the second reason. The 1948 treaty of Brussels led to the creation of the Western European Union. It contained absolute guarantees of collective defence. It also proposed military, political and economic dimensions among its European members.
370
The original WEU mandate was hijacked and divided by the emergence of NATO and the European Coal and Steel Community, which later became the European Union. The WEU lost its empire and did not find a role until the Petersburg declaration of 1992, when it abandoned competition with NATO and the EU and focused on a new, high-profile military response to crisis management: evacuations, humanitarian missions, peacekeeping and peace enforcement.
The WEU also established a role in less traditional operations such as blockade and embargo enforcement, minesweeping and police work. That is where my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) is so right. The WEU has an inclusive agenda and membership. It can embrace Sweden and Turkey, as well as 10 central European countries, as associate partners, and put them all on its decision-making permanent council. It is outward looking and has no standing or dedicated forces, but it has legal authority to put such forces together, up to and including borrowing a combined joint task force from NATO.
The treaty of Amsterdam gives the EU no direct defence competence. That role falls to the WEU, whose new prominence has been demand-led. Our Government should convince our EU partners that there is no institutional imperative to create a new defence competence in Brussels. Europe faces multifaceted, multi-directional risks and uncertainties. The world is still adjusting to the end of the cold war. When both the EU and NATO are adjusting to expansion, the European chemistry needs time to settle down in its defence and security pool.
Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the loudest voices among our European Union partners in favour of new defence roles for the EU are those in the process of slashing their defence budgets and reducing their armed forces to almost nothing?
Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. I shall come to the strength of individual members.
By the end of this year, NATO must agree a new strategic plan, with political consensus at each milestone. We can also expect new regional alliances to emerge. Russian instability, middle eastern uncertainty, Mediterranean tensions and the emerging threats posed by ballistic missile technology and weapons of mass destruction all point to the need for consolidation and stability in European defence and security. By all means let us think the unthinkable, but let us also always remember that NATO was never merely a convenient post-war military alliance for the defence of western Europe. NATO was created in defence of common ideas and interests and of fundamental beliefs in democracy, the rule of law, market economics and free trade. If it ain't bust, don't fix it.
There is another new and worrying development against which the Government must guard. NATO is a partnership, an equal partnership of members. Some are stronger than others, but ultimately we are all as strong as the strongest member. A European defence identity is one thing; a European voting caucus within NATO would be quite another. The United Kingdom should always give pride of place to the north Atlantic aspect of the treaty organisation.

371
For more than a week, it has been stormy in Wales. The weather has been unusually violent. Life-threatening flooding has caused havoc. It will surprise no one that within hours of the flooding, the civil authorities had called on the military for help. Sandbags were filled and distributed, many stranded people were rescued, and motor and other more ingenious forms transport through the floods were provided. We are grateful to the regular soldiers from Brecon and elsewhere who took part. We are also grateful to the territorials of the 2nd battalion, Royal Regiment of Wales, which did such valiant work in Merthyr vale. It will not surprise the House that the Government propose to close two of the battalion's three TA centres.
It would be comical if it were not so serious to hear Labour Ministers using some of the very words and phrases spoken by Conservative Ministers over the years. It is sad, almost embarrassing, that the Secretary of State seems to believe that he invented defence diplomacy. That term and mission have been with the Ministry of Defence since Sir John Nott introduced it in his 1982 defence White Paper. The former Armed Forces Minister spoke of the need for the Territorial Army to be relevant and usable—the exact words of the then Secretary of State, Malcolm Rifkind in his October 1993 "Framework for the Future" of the reserve forces.
For those with an interest in Britain's volunteer reserves, July 1998 gave birth to a paradox. The Secretary of State's announcement of the outcome of the SDR, including the savage cut in the TA from 59,000 to about 40,000 volunteers, means that the bulk of the TA infantry and yeomanry regiments are set to go, on the apparent grounds that they are dedicated to military defence, such as guarding key points throughout Britain or forming a reconnaissance screen against an invading force.
I was vocal in my objection to the way in which Ministers during the summer used that as a "Dad's Army" analogy. All that will have come as a surprise to the aforesaid infantry and yeomanry, who were told back in 1992 during the first TA restructuring that military home defence was no longer a significant element in their role.
It was also announced in 1992 that all TA infantry and yeomanry regiments would be redesignated as national defence, a new term recognising a changing and uncertain threat that was designed to encompass a wide spectrum of operational scenarios. The possibilities included NATO, United Nations and national operations world wide, as well as military aid to the civil authorities in the United Kingdom and, at the remote end of the scale, military home defence.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Given that 10 per cent. of our strength in Bosnia has been territorials, are the Government suggesting that the training undertaken by the Territorial Army over the past few years has been irrelevant and unuseful?
Mr. Key: I am not convinced that the Government yet know what they are proposing. I am enormously relieved to hear that the Minister has received no proposals and made no decisions yet. I want him to listen to our case. My hon. Friend is right to make his point.
Mr. Robathan: In talking about things irrelevant and useless, will my hon. Friend comment on the many
372
interventions from perhaps naive Labour Members who say that they must fight for the 3rd Loamshires or whatever? Do they not realise that their Government are about to scrap all the infantry and yeomanry regiments and lump them into the 1st Midland Corps or whatever it might be called? Is not what Labour Members say therefore complete humbug?
Mr. Key: Perish the thought. It is right that all hon. Members should fight their corners, but Ministers must listen. I fear that down at Land Command in Wilton in my constituency, the military chiefs are having a terrible time knowing that the Minister is about to cave in to his Back Benchers with their individual interests. In the end, Land Command will have to fish around to make more savings to achieve what I might call the non-cuts that will become a political imperative by then. It may not be not humbug but realism; in the end, it will be the Army that pays.
Mrs. Theresa May: Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be considerable surprise outside the House at the Minister's repeated attempts to put aside concerns about the future of the Territorial Army by saying that no decisions have been taken? Setting aside geographical issues such as Berkshire's loss of a link with a TA infantry battalion, what causes most concern outside the House is the one decision that the Government have taken—the cut in the TA. That is what recently led the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead unanimously to express its regret at the loss of the TA's contribution to national defence, and at the loss of the important core skills that the public-spirited young volunteers who join the TA gain from their experience.
Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. She has spoken valiantly for her local TA. If there is any humbug, it is that of Ministers who have pretended for a year that the SDR had nothing to do with the Treasury. We all knew that in the end, the Treasury held the purse strings in every sense.
In case no one had got the message, the principle of wider employment was reinforced in the 1994 restructuring. All units were reorganised to create a general purpose structure designed to give them flexibility of employment across the spectrum of military operations. Any remaining vestige of a link between cold-war scenarios and the role or organisation of the TA had disappeared by 1994, not 1 May 1997. The final step in the creation of a relevant and useable TA came with the passage through the House of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Just one week after the SDR was announced in July, 1,400 reservists from the three services and a vast array of unit and specialist equipment gathered on the Minley training area for the reserve forces experience. Ironically, the 74 units and 400 vehicles that comprised the experience were intended to show how the reserves have adapted to post-cold war circumstances.
The peace experience at Minley was designed to illustrate the wide utility of our volunteer reserves in a range of so-called peace operations. Visitors were reminded that the reserve components of the armed forces have contributed substantially to Britain's defence commitments during and since the Gulf war, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)

373
reminded us. The TA has met 10 per cent. of our total commitment in Bosnia from the outset. A total of 5 per cent. of the Royal Naval Reserve is always in service with Royal Navy units. Personnel from the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Reserve have been present in the Persian Gulf continuously since the Gulf war.
It was evident that many of the capabilities on display were unique to the reserves and build on their many civilian skills. Automobile Association patrol men in Royal Military Police uniforms and British Telecom engineers with the Royal Signals provided two good examples. It was a huge success and I learned much during my visit with the shadow Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk.
That brings us back to the SDR and the future of those at Minley who created such a memorable experience. With the evidence of their adaptability and professionalism there for all to see, many territorials could not understand how anyone could argue that the cold war was over three times within six years to justify further reduction. Many of them could not understand why the total of "around 40,000" should include 3,500 members of the Officer Training Corps and 1,500 non-regular permanent staff. Neither category, however useful, is an integral element of the Army's operational force structure. When the details of the new "revitalised" Territorial Army structure are announced, those affected will seek more convincing explanations for the demise of their units than have been deployed so far.
Is it really just money? The Government have cut the defence budget quite substantially at a time when, in the United States, the defence budget is undergoing a hike of 10 per cent and when the Americans have announced a new use for the National Guard and the reserves. Press reports from Washington point out that
"changes to homeland defense, the stand-up of new reserve teams to combat weapons of mass destruction and the continuance of the reserve component integration within the active force are in the cards for reservists in the next year."
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has spoken about that eloquently already.
Charles L. Cragin, acting Assistant Secretary of Defence for reserve affairs, said that
"reservists continue to re-serve around the world…The reserve components have a completely new role in homeland defense…the definition of homeland defense continues to evolve."
Cragin also said that
"Homeland defense has been under discussion for some time, because we don't really know what it constitutes in this day of asymmetrical threats…We know for certain that it includes responding to weapons of mass destruction…We know that it includes information operations and counter-intelligence operations for information warfare. It includes the air defense of the United States. We don't know how much further it goes as it relates to National Guard and Reserve involvement."
Defence Secretary William Cohen's initiatives in the area of weapons of mass destruction have raised the whole homeland defence issue. The congressionally chartered National Defence Panel agreed with him when it recommended that the reserve component play a seminal role in homeland defence. I hope that we will see similar thinking here and we look forward to hearing more about that.
374
In 1928 the British general staff were told that the Cabinet had decided that there would be no war for 10 years and that there was no direct threat to the United Kingdom. So the Territorial Army had no useful role overseas and no role in assisting the civil powers—it was finished. That was on the advice of experienced soldiers who had been through the first world war. They were so wrong. How can their modern equivalents be so sure today, especially with the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) as Foreign Secretary?
I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) who told us last week that the TA is our insurance against the unexpected. In the Gulf war we were almost down to our last platoon of infantry regulars. If the war had gone on another few weeks, there would have been no regulars to perform guard duty or to secure lines of communication. I believe that we should take the long view and not seek to rewrite history.
Mr. Brazier: I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. My hon. Friend talked about the Americans. Is it not extraordinary that, perhaps for the first time since the House first met many hundreds of years ago, we have a Government saying that home defence does not matter at all when a country as powerful as America is saying that it is of critical and increasing importance?
Mr. Key: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and I must fall back on the Minister's argument, which is that he has not yet decided. I hope that the Minister will listen to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
I shall deal now with Army training. It was Field Marshall Rommel who said:
"The best form of welfare for troops is training, as well-trained troops result in fewer widows."
In March 1997, Lieutenant General Sir Huw Pike, then deputy commander-in-chief, produced the report, "Striking a Balance 97". It deals with the
management of the major Army training areas. He stressed the importance of each Army field training centre achieving its effective manageable capacity. He said that planning and management systems must take into account a huge range of factors such as the size and shape of the training area, which must be appropriate for exercises, the nature of the ground, the geology and the geomorphology. For example, one can put tanks on Salisbury plain but they sink at Otterburn. He talked about the importance of seasonal factors such as wet and dry weather, farming practices, interface with local communities, archaeology, which is very difficult on Salisbury plain, and conservation, which was a huge success for the Army on Porton Down. He mentioned the quality of public access, the risks of public access on military land and the recreational use of military training areas dealing with everything from 4x4s to falconry. An issue of particular importance to local residents is the management of noise from artillery fire. I do not know whether that is an art or a science, but the military have made huge strides in that in my constituency.
There is also virtual reality training. In June this year the world's largest battlefield simulator project was unveiled at the combined arms tactical training facility at Warminster in Wiltshire. The project cost about

375
£180 million and will be completed by 2000. More than 400 troops at a time will fight virtual battles across a computer-generated landscape, using simulators built to look like the interiors of Challengers, Warriors and Scimitars. The simulators have been designed by Lockheed Martin and can be linked by satellite to other facilities in Germany and Texas so that British and US troops can collaborate in exercises against, for example, a computer-generated motorised rifle regiment.
The United Kingdom version is the largest, covering an area the size of two football pitches. According to managers of the combined arms tactical training centre, the aim of the project is not to replace live exercises but to complement them. Virtual reality exercises help units gain advanced knowledge of their equipment, tactics and different types of terrain and scenarios. It is a great facility.
What about live training? I shall quote liberally from the document "Striking a Balance 97", which I mentioned earlier. The deficit in training land is about 39,000 hectares. Salisbury plain training area is only 33,000 hectares. That is a deficit of about 21 per cent. of the Army's total requirements. The document states:
"These findings confirm the conclusions of successive HQ Land Command mid and end-year reports that there is a shortfall of training land which is adversely affecting operational readiness and military capability. They demonstrate that the widespread perception that the Army is over-provided with training land is not correct."
It points out that training land has come under growing pressure and that many units are finding it increasingly difficult to gain access to major training areas. That will become more of a problem once the full effects of the draw-down from Germany are felt on the training estate and the training needs of the joint rapid deployment force and the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps have been quantified.
Brigade headquarters have problems with all this. The development of existing facilities at Otterburn for the AS90 and multiple launch rocket system training is essential to help remedy the shortfalls in field firing training land. The enhanced use of Kirkcudbright, which has 1,800 hectares for infantry training, is essential. The report states that existing training areas need to be expanded.
All that demonstrates that there is a theoretical shortfall of about 83,000 hectares of training land in the United Kingdom. The effective shortfall is 39,000 hectares—a significant deficiency. We desperately need more training land.
On 26 June, I asked the House of Commons Library to find out what progress had been made on the Otterburn inquiry into the extension of facilities on the range in Northumberland national park. I was told that the inquiry opened in April 1997. It heard 80 witnesses before ending in October. The inspector then withdrew to write his report. I was informed that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has powers to override the inspector's judgment if he so chooses.
On 6 July, in a parliamentary question, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence:
"what assessment he has made of the contribution to the UK national interest of training the army…at Otterburn."
The then Minister for the Armed Forces replied:
"I am satisfied that there remains a strong defence need".—[Official Report, 6 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 356.]
376
Later in the summer, the thing unfolded. We had on 8 July the strategic defence review statement. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we were told, would announce his decision as quickly as possible. Then the trouble started.
On 30 July, the Government office of the north-east informed my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that the inspector had made his report to the Secretary of State. On 14 August, the Association of Rural Communities, which is based in Otterburn, said that it had the support of the majority of local people in saying that it was more than happy for the Ministry of Defence to be there and to continue to train with weaponry capable of maintaining British and global security. It said that Otterburn had been in existence since 1912.
By 5 October, post-inquiry correspondence had been received from the Council for National Parks, the Natural History Society of Northumbria, Northumberland county council, the Ministry of Defence, the Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Northumberland national park authority, the Association of Rural Communities and Ponteland parish council. All those interested parties, lobbies and associations should be listened to carefully, but the final decision is not theirs. It is for Ministers to decide what is in the national interest.
On 21 September the Defence Estate Organisation wrote to the Government office of the north-east. It said:
"it remains the position that it is in the national interest for the developments proposed at Otterburn Training Area to proceed with urgency to ensure the operational readiness of the AS90 and MLRS units…The proposals requiring approval from the public inquiry remain of urgent national importance."
But now, on 5 October, the whole thing appears to be open again.
The Government office of the north-east has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham saying:
"The new issues raised relate to the potential impact arising from the recent Strategic Defence Review."
It then listed the reasons. I must tell Ministers that, although the use of electronic training simulators and laser-guided weapons technology is welcome, there is no substitute for live firing exercises. Withdrawal of the Army from Germany has put severe pressure on our training land. The indecision over Otterburn is now compromising the Army's ability to train in two of its main weapons—the AS90 gun and the multi-launch rocket system.
To reopen the Otterburn inquiry on the grounds that the SDR has introduced new policies would set a dangerous precedent. Training is training, and if the Army cannot train it is stuffed, as one frustrated colonel put it to me last weekend. The Secretary of State must stand up for the Army. The Deputy Prime Minister, who must decide, must recognise the national interest when it stares him in the face.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the problems that we face with the development of the Otterburn training range. May I underline what he says by saying that unless we have approval by December, the ability to train troops on the

377
AS90 will be seriously prejudiced for many months ahead? The livelihood of many of my constituents who work for the Army will also be prejudiced.
Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He knows the situation better than most, and he has been assiduous in representing the interests of his constituents. I agree with every word that he says.
Although so many more points could be raised, I should like to finish by remembering for a moment at this time, when so many of us are wearing red poppies, the work of the Royal British Legion. There are 6 million ex-service men in this country. There are 9 million widows, wives and dependants. Last year, some 300,000 former service men and women called upon the Royal British Legion for services—everything from hospital visits to the Royal British Legion training centre at Tidworth, which I visited a little while ago. In the next few weeks, some 300,000 voluntary collectors and organisers will be out collecting money for the poppy appeal. That is extremely important not only for the past but for the present and for the future.
I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury for reminding me of a story that I have no reason to believe is untrue. Many of us will be attending our remembrance day parades and services in a few days' time. One Member of Parliament attended his usual service and parade with the Royal British Legion and listened to the sermon. There was no mention of world war one or world war two. So the Member of Parliament said to the vicar afterwards that he was surprised at this. The vicar said, "Well, you know, it was a very long time ago. It was long before even I was born so I try to make it all a bit more relevant." The Member of Parliament replied, "So you'll be having some trouble with Christmas then!"
We have no trouble at all in honouring the memory of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. We salute the courage of the finest professional army in the world, the finest volunteer reservists and the thousands of young men and women who commit themselves to serve our country and follow the flag.
5.45 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). He and I have shared innumerable sessions on the Defence Committee and engaged in verbal sword play on those occasions. Strangely enough, we always came to a consensus because every member of the Committee, of whatever political complexion, put first and foremost the issues of defence of this country and, indeed, Europe, so I will not follow the hon. Gentleman through all his gymnastics today, but I will make one or two references to what he has said.
I want to pick up some of the points that I made last Tuesday when I was fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but was able to speak for only 10 minutes like so many others on that occasion. One is able to mention points, but not really to explore them in those circumstances. I gave a list of qualifications in order to justify my existence, but I omitted one. I did so deliberately, not knowing that I might have to make reference to it tonight.
378
I register the fact that I serve on the defence and security committees of both the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly and the North Atlantic Assembly. Indeed, I am the vice-chairman of the NAA defence and security committee. What I did not tell the House last Tuesday was that I have also been appointed to a joint working group set up to monitor and scrutinise the work of the NATO-Russia permanent joint council. [Interruption.] I can only hope that that is not an opinion on my usefulness.
The permanent joint council is a conduit for the rapid resolution of problems between NATO and the Russian Federation. The joint working group is made up of 14 people—seven from the North Atlantic Assembly and seven from the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. Of the seven from the NAA, only two are from the United Kingdom. One is the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and the other is myself. The first meeting of the group takes place in Brussels tomorrow, and I am required to meet the Russian half of the working group at Brussels airport first thing in the morning and escort them to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, where they are due to meet General Wesley Clarke. I must, therefore, apologise sincerely for not being able to stay for the end of the debate. I shall have to transport myself PDQ to Brussels to prepare myself for that early appointment.
Having explained that point, I do not wish to emphasise it to enhance the regard in which the House may or may not hold me. However, as I make the comments today that I started to make last Tuesday, I want it to be borne in mind that my position with the NAA and the OSCE enables me to mix with, converse with and get into the heads of many senior politicians and defence experts in central and eastern Europe and in the Russian Federation. It also requires me to try to get into the heads of all our NATO allies of a similar grain. It is a great learning process—great in two ways: it is great, but sometimes it grates; nevertheless, one has to cope.
That point brings me to the main cause of my concern. Last week, I had no time to comment on the strategic defence review. The international response to the SDR has been quite remarkable. There is no question that, despite its shortcomings, which are inevitable, it has set a benchmark for other nations, both allied and non-allied. The speed with which it was conducted is quite remarkable, despite what Opposition Members might claim. That speed is one of the reasons why there are shortfalls in some areas. However, I emphasise that that review cannot be the be-all and end-all: the process must be on-going and continuous; it must never end. Internationally, it is acknowledged that we have made a first-class start, but we have to maintain the momentum.
On the issue of reserves, the hon. Member for Salisbury made great play of the situation in the United States and, to be honest, I have to say that he was right to do so. Last week, I made the point that if we set the level of our reserve forces at 40,000, it would mean that we had a reserve level of approximately 35 per cent. of our regular complement—a regular complement which, as the Minister acknowledged, is 5 per cent. below strength and which is being supplemented in Bosnia by a 10 per cent. terrier contribution. Therefore, overstretch might well be becoming—yet again—a problem within the regular forces; and, if we reduce our reserve forces to such an

379
extent and if we call on them to such an extent, it could well be that overstretch will become a problem in our reserve forces.
On the military side—meaning the Army—the USA, which is one of our major allies, has, in the broadest possible terms, one for one. That means that it has a reserve complement of 100 per cent. of its regular force. The Americans say that they have greater responsibilities than we have, but I wonder whether that is true. They might have more things to worry about, but they have a bigger force with which to act and a strike capability that is stronger and heavier by far. The fact that they hold 100 per cent. in reserve simply means that they want to ensure that they can call on those resources as and when they need them.
The Americans recognise that the resources they need to be able to call on in the new crisis situations facing us at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st are specialists in the sorts of activities that are currently being undertaken by the 10 per cent. that we have in Bosnia. Those activities have to be undertaken by specialists in water quality, transport, drainage, electricity generation and other services. We are not talking about pushing a jenny to the back of a building in order to do some welding, but about supplying communities with major resources, such as power. Those are the requirements and we should be building up the resources necessary to meet them, not reducing them.
That is one side of the coin—the NATO side. Let us look for a moment at the other side of the coin—the non-NATO allies who engage with us in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and who are associate members of NATO's Parliament. The Russians talk to us and tell us their problems. Their units used to rotate around the Soviet Union so that they did not get involved in corruption, but that no longer happens. The result is that units are becoming almost the property of local governors and regional warlords, because it is only those people who can guarantee the soldiers any sort of income. That income is usually provided on the basis of bartering: the regional authorities feed the troops, provided the troops repair transport vehicles, mend roads, or perform other services. A strange symbiosis is building between local chieftains and military units.
When we refer to reserves—to the need for reserves and the need to train them—the Russians do not understand. Most of their regular forces—or their conscripted forces, as I should say—are experienced in mending vehicles, or even in planting and picking potatoes, because those are the regular, day-to-day tasks that they are required to perform in order to feed themselves. When they hear us talking about reserves and ask for more information, they hear that the United States has one for one—100 per cent. reserves for the size of their regular force. When they realise that our reserve forces are not 100 per cent., they pose questions. It is difficult for me explain why our reserve forces are not as well equipped or as large as we would ideally like them to be.
I know that there is a problem of striking a balance between the Treasury requirements and the defence ideal. That is part of the problem. We saw yet again in the veiled menace apparent in the suggestions contained in the document that was leaked last week the possibility that regular officers of senior rank are exerting their influence over ministerial decisions, while the reserve forces are
380
outgunned because they do not have representatives at senior level who are able to hold their corner. I am pleased to hear that the Minister has no definitive proposals and relieved that no decisions have been taken. However, I urge him to ensure the appointment of a senior staff officer to represent the interests of the terriers and the reservists.
When discussing the launchers and the royal trumpshire borderers and the like, the hon. Member for Salisbury said that it will be the Army that pays—but I have to point out that it is all one Army. The regulars and the terriers are no different other than in the nature of their commitment to society. The 10 per cent. who are in Bosnia today can die just as easily, just as quickly and just as horribly as a regular soldier who has been a member of the forces for 12 years.
We are talking about one Army, and we have to ensure that its reserve component is given a strong voice against the Regular Army's top brass. I am not denigrating or criticising the top brass—who have their job to do, like everyone else—but we have to match like with like. If Tyson can get into the ring only with other heavyweights, the terriers should, like the regulars, have senior staff officers to represent their interests in budgetary debates.
In last Tuesday's debate, I asked the Minister to consider doing for British nuclear test veterans the same as has been done for our Gulf war veterans—to review their medical condition. I realise that only one week has passed since that debate, but I should have hoped to receive some sort of formal acknowledgement that consideration might be given to that request. I shall repeat the request, in case it has slipped the Minister's mind, or perhaps never reached the notebooks of the commissars occupying the Under-Gallery.
I plead for further consideration to be given to the case of nuclear test veterans, who gave sterling service to the Crown and the country. On instruction, they put themselves at risk. They were told to bare themselves—they were virtually naked—and to roll on the ground at ground zero after various explosions. Furthermore, their service records have been bowdlerised. Many of the veterans have discovered that their records contain not a hint that they ever participated in test activities. I believe that those omissions constitute a case of deliberate neglect, and to ignore their pleas for further consideration would be quite unjustified.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Have not the Australian Federal Government paid to their nuclear test veterans—to the men who were at Maralinga, in South Australia—the type of compensation mentioned by my hon. Friend?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I submit that they did not get sufficient compensation—but that is not the point. The Australian Federal Government established that principle some years ago and provided compensation.
Meanwhile, since the Federal Government of Australia came to that agreement with their veterans, our men and women—not only service veterans, but civilians, from NAAFI, for example—have been dying. Very soon, many of them will have disappeared entirely, at which point whichever Government are in power can comfortably rub their hands together and say, "That's that problem solved." However, the problem will not have been solved.

381
I also repeat my invitation to the Minister to visit HMS Kellington and its Marines, who are a type of Army—although they might object to that statement. The Kellington has Marine cadets, who are very keen to meet the Minister. I should say also that the chairman of the sea cadets has received a letter from the Ministry of Defence, offering to sell the Kellington for £12,000. The sea cadets have offered £5,000 for it.
My advice to the chairman is that he should not entertain accepting the offer from the Ministry, which is certainly not in need of a £12,000 handout that could be raised only by the cadets' regular charitable works. The cadets should not offer a penny for the Kellington, but should withdraw their £5,000 offer. The fact is that it would cost the Ministry about a quarter of a million pounds to scrap the Kellington. I have also already mentioned to the local authority that I should expect it to refuse any planning permission for the Kellington's quayside demolition. I repeat my invitation to the Minister to visit HMS Kellington, where he will receive a very warm reception. I make that invitation most hospitably—we shall not require anyone to walk the plank.
The strategic defence review is a good start. However, we have a long way to go on the review, and it has to be repeated year after year, as each new commitment is made.
6.4 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: Like many other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity to have this debate—the first in almost two years—on the future of the Army. I welcome also the commitment made by the Minister that a debate on the Army, and on the other two branches of the armed forces, will be a regular feature in the House. I accept in principle his point on how such debates could be diversified, to address many of the issues that we face.
I am also delighted that the Minister has remained in the Chamber for the debate. In last Tuesday's debate, he had to leave when I started my speech. I am glad that the start of my speech today has not persuaded him that it is time to find something else to do. I put that down to "gapping"—to use the Ministry's phrase—among the ministerial team at the Ministry of Defence.
I was, nevertheless, disappointed that the Minister did not allow me to intervene in his speech on the three occasions that I attempted to do so. However, I shall offer him the opportunity to intervene in my speech to deal with the three points that I shall make, and would have made earlier in my three attempted interventions.
I should be interested to know, first, whether the Minister could tell the House what future Ministers envision for the Territorial Army. He stood back and said, "No proposals have been made to us", but I should be very interested to know what he would like to happen.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made the point that the TA does not have great clout within the Ministry. I think that he and other hon. Members are expecting the TA to gain some clout from the efforts in the House of hon. Members who have made representations on behalf of either individual units or the huge swathe of the United Kingdom—from the highlands
382
of Scotland right down to the border—that could be bereft of TA units. It would be very interesting if the Minister came clean and told us what the ministerial team is hoping to achieve. If he does take on board all the special pleading, the policy that we saw exposed in all the documents that were leaked last week will be in tatters, and there will have to be a complete rethink of the matter. I am quite prepared to give him an opportunity to deal with that point.
The second point that really does require clarification by the Minister is on his statement on Challenger 2 tanks. If it is true that an order for transportation for those tanks—to wherever they will be needed in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe—has not yet been placed, that the Army currently has no transport for those heavier tanks and that the Minister, as he told the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who raised the point, has been assured that there are plans to deal with such transport, the House is entitled to know what those plans entail. We should be told how we shall transport a tank that is too heavy to be carried on any existing transport and that is, today, ready for delivery to the British Army.
My third intervention would have been on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on the Gurkhas, specifically on the Gurkhas' pensions. I did not take great heart from the Minister's comment that the pensions were based on an agreement with the Nepalese Government. Many Gurkhas, both serving and retired, find it very hard to exist on their pension when they return to Nepal. I should have thought that we owe the Gurkhas just a little more, not only for their continuing service, but for the tremendous service that they have given in the past. We should do a bit more justice to their claim for an upgraded pension.
I request also that Defence Ministers put a little pressure on Home Office Ministers to consider more sympathetically the cases of retired Gurkhas who, on retirement, want to continue working in the United Kingdom. Although there are very few such people, I am currently dealing with the cases of six of them who are now employed as laundrymen by the Royal Navy. They are seeking to be re-employed, but are being told that, because they have no residential status here, they will first have to return to Nepal before re-applying to return to the United Kingdom. Once again, that is an absurd way in which to treat people who have given decades of loyal service to this country and who continue to do so. I hope that the Minister will deal with those three specific points.
Mr. Swayne: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the pertinent interventions that he would have made, but I should like to take him back to the first and ask him to comment on the difficulties facing serving officers, of whom I am one. We know the plans that Land Command has for us to implement the Government's proposals. Distasteful as they are, we are keen to get on with them in the interests of maintaining morale and efficiency. However, we now stand to have progress delayed and unpicked by a series of Back-Bench special pleadings.
Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is pertinent, but it is optimistic to believe that the unpicking is going to take place to the extent that hon. Members hope. It is obvious that the special pleading that we heard last week and today is of such magnitude that there will

383
be no reduction in the TA. As others have said, if, at the end of the day, the reduction does not come from the TA, the whole strategic defence review will have to be rethought because the Government will have to find the hundreds of millions of pounds that they were hoping to save over the next five years. I suggest that the mess does not end with the TA, but surrounds the whole process on which we have been embarked for the past year.
Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to serving Army personnel—men and women—and to the civilian workers who support them. Having been privileged since my return to Parliament, and in my previous existence as a Member of Parliament, to have seen our armed forces in operation all over the world—in Bosnia, Germany, Northern Ireland, Cyprus and the Falklands—I am proud to say that I enjoyed the time spent with those service units and have been mightily impressed by their attitude and dedication. The Minister was right to say that they have the right ethos and spirit for the job that they are doing.
The biggest issue facing the Army is undoubtedly that of undermanning and overstretch. The Minister was right to begin to tackle those problems in his presentation today. The Secretary of State has given a clear commitment to eradicate undermanning and to tackle overstretch. I am sure that every hon. Member and everyone in the Army and the armed forces in general welcomes that.
A glimpse of the scale of the crisis was revealed in the previous Parliament when the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) told the House of his experience, which I read in Hansard with great interest, when he visited serving soldiers in Northern Ireland. They were working 98 hours a week; they were away from their unit for 51 per cent. of the time; and they had very short gaps between tours of duty.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) was told in parliamentary answers of the deficits in some of the units of the Army. The Royal Armoured Corps is 5 per cent. under strength, the Royal Artillery Corps is 7 per cent. down, the infantry is 9 per cent. down on average and the Royal Corps of Signals is 10 per cent. down. There is even a shortage of chaplains—the Royal Army Chaplains Department is something like 6 per cent. Short—although the staff officers are 3 per cent. over strength.
The Select Committee on Defence has rightly examined the problem and, in its comprehensive report, confirmed that it is significant. It admitted that it had had great difficulty in getting hold of accurate information. How can it be right that the Committee set up by the House to examine defence-related issues has difficulty in getting at the truth of undermanning and overstretch in the Army? I shall quote the report so that the Minister can take the problem on board again. It states:
"Precise and up-to-date information about the extent of overstretch is hard to come by; detailed parliamentary questions on the subject often meet with the response that information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost."
How can the Minister tell us that there is a problem of overstretch if the figures are not available? As the Select Committee on Defence cannot get accurate information, I should be grateful if the Minister who winds up the debate could expand on the problem of overstretch.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman an example of overstretch. My regiment,
384
the Light Dragoons, has been in Bosnia and will be supporting its 11th squadron tour in Bosnia by June next year. Of an establishment of 398, most of whom are not married, 82 will have had their marriages dissolved over the past four years. That is an example of overstretch, and in a regiment that has been fully recruited.
Mr. Hancock: I have every sympathy with that intervention. I am sure that any hon. Member who has had any contact with any element of our armed forces will know that what the hon. Gentleman says is true not only of that unit, but of many others throughout the armed forces. It was a shame that no Minister mentioned that problem last week or today.
There is an understandable worry about whether the SDR's formation readiness cycle will prove effective in reducing overstretch. The Select Committee on Defence believes that
"the proposed new cycle is at present only a paper exercise—sustaining it in practice will be a formidable challenge".
Can we be sure that the additional obligations will not disrupt that cycle? What about the tours in Northern Ireland? What will happen to the way in which men and women are trained for exercises and work in Northern Ireland? Will not there be added pressures coming from the foreign service-led initiatives about which we have been told? Quite often, emergency deployments are for battalions, not brigades. Will not the battalion that is deployed end up suffering as it does now?
We need to be able to measure the extent of the problem, which is the reason that we need to know the truth of the problem. I ask Ministers to tell us how they are going to assess overstretch, to measure the number of hours our armed forces are working and to record the length of tours of duty and the pitiful gap between tours. Without a proper assessment of the present situation, the House, our armed forces and the nation will not be able to judge the success or otherwise of the steps that the Secretary of State is now telling us he will take following the SDR. If we cannot measure, we cannot possibly be expected to judge. Surely the Minister will have to tell us a little more today about the current situation.
Of course, our Conservative colleagues have played no little part in creating the problems of overstretch. They presided over a one third reduction in our armed forces and over a cut of literally tens of billions of pounds in the defence budget.
Mr. Key: What would you have done?
Mr. Hancock: I was not in government; you were. You made the decisions, and you can hardly criticise the results of some of those decisions—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. They are not decisions that I made.
Mr. Hancock: I am sure that they were not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise if I implied that you were personally responsible for any of those atrocious decisions. I place the blame for them firmly where it belongs—on the former Conservative Government.
The Conservative Government gave away hundreds of millions of pounds in redundancy payments while at the same time spending tens of millions of pounds trying to

385
re-recruit people for the armed forces. We must apportion some of the blame and responsibility for overstretch and similar problems squarely on the shoulders of that Government.
I am pleased that the Government have made a commitment to full manning by 2004, but one of the major issues that we must discuss is the way in which we recruit and retain people. Part of the way to deal with the recruitment pressure that the Army is facing is to ensure that the organisation is seen to treat people better.
The equal opportunities situation in our armed forces—in the Army, as in the Navy and the Royal Air Force—is scandalous. As a result of our previous failures to tackle that issue, we have slammed the door in the face of thousands of people who would have wanted to serve, and whose skills the Army desperately needs.
Surely, now that the SDR is considering the whole of the armed forces, it is time that the Government lifted the ban that prevents gay people from serving in our armed forces. This country remains alone in the European Union with such a ban, and reform is long overdue. I hoped that the Government would have had the courage to tackle the issue.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman may know that I have a son in the forces. I meet him and his colleagues, and although I agree with the point of view that the hon. Gentleman is advancing, I must say that the general view in the forces is very much opposed to such reform. If we take account of self-determination, it might create a very real problem in the ranks if we went down that road. I want to ensure that that is part of the consideration.
Mr. Hancock: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made; I well remember conversations on the subject with members of the Royal Marines when I was in Jordan recently. However, many of the men also expressed sadness when their colleagues—officers and men who had given loyal service to the Royal Marines and other units—were hounded out because their sexuality had been questioned and our rules do not allow them to remain. There are two sides of the issue, but I am sure that, ultimately, it is better for us to institute the reform in the House than be forced into it by European Courts making law that would make it a right for gay people to remain in the forces.
We must also ensure that there are no iron curtains within the British armed forces for anyone—men or women. We must make people feel that they are welcome. This morning, I listened with great interest when, on the radio, I heard a Sikh lieutenant-colonel addressing the problem of being asked to try to recruit more ethnic minorities into the Army. He said that, of 14,000 officers in the British Army, only 140—1 per cent.—were of ethnic origin. That cannot be right in a country that prides itself on being a rich cocktail of a cosmopolitan, understanding community.
We owe it to everyone to do more to ensure that more people from those groups join our armed forces. We must also ensure that we give people proper opportunities when they are in the Army. Two weeks ago, I had an unpleasant conversation—in the sense that it was disappointing—with a young Army captain. He had recently been
386
promoted captain. He had been through Sandhurst and done his time as a junior platoon leader, and now he was being promoted to captain, but his personal priority was to decide on the right time to leave the Army. He had come face to face with the promotional block—the fact that many young men like him, who had joined the Army at 19, hoping for a career well into their 40s, were starting to consider whether they could risk staying on past 30. That cannot be right. We must do more to support our service personnel in all ranks.
I have talked to Royal Marines, so I know how frustrated they are that, at junior non-commissioned officer level, they cannot be promoted. Some have spent between five and 10 years in a junior NCO rank, unable to be promoted because of the logjam. That cannot be right. It saps the morale of those men and, through them, of other members of the unit. It is a great shame to see those highly trained, efficient working individuals turned out of the service because their promotional prospects are up against a logjam. That problem is long-standing. Hon. Members need to ensure that firm action is taken.
We must also treat personnel right when they leave the service. People who have given dedicated service need to know that they will be treated fairly when that service ends. I think of two of my brothers-in-law. One recently left the Royal Navy after 20-odd years; the other left about two years ago, after 30 years' service. Both have found it extremely difficult to adapt to life on the outside. Both felt that what was on offer to them might have sounded good in financial terms, but did not deliver the opportunities in civilian life that they could have hoped for, because they had done specialised work in the services.
We must give families more support. For two years, the family of Private Jeans—a young soldier from Portsmouth who lost his life in Croatia—have tried to obtain justice for their son's tragic death. He was killed by Croatian youths while on a recreational visit to Split, and yet, in my opinion, the Ministry of Defence has not given that family all the help that they should have had to ensure that justice is done. With the help of the local newspaper in Portsmouth, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and others who have come to the support of that family, things are starting to move in the right direction, but the Ministry of Defence should have been there from day one, supporting and helping that family in that difficult time.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North spoke about the nuclear test veterans. How right he was. If we are trying to conduct a strategic defence review with the avowed intention of putting people first, we must ensure that we start to honour some of our obligations to the people who went before, and the nuclear test veterans are a classic example.
I am proud to say that, at the cathedral in Portsmouth, we have the permanent memorial to the nuclear test veterans. What a shame it was that the Ministry of Defence would not allow any senior personnel to attend the celebrations when the stone was laid and the chair placed in the cathedral. No senior member of the British armed forces could attend, and no one from the Ministry of Defence visited on that splendid occasion. It was left to local politicians and the Church locally to organise the event, with the National Nuclear Test Veterans. However, the Minister was right to explain the enormous debt that we owe those young men, some of whom were put

387
through the trauma of being obliged to witness not one, but six or seven nuclear explosions. Moreover, when they have challenged that, they have met a conspiracy of silence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar)indicated dissent.
Mr. Hancock: That is true, although the Minister shakes his head. I have asked questions and written letters, and sometimes the Ministry of Defence has denied that the ships were even there, and that those people were part of the crew; and yet in my constituency, there are dozens of those people, who know one another and knew one another at the time, and they cannot all be pretending to be nuclear test veterans. There is a conspiracy against us, and there is a conspiracy not to give them justice.
If there was any semblance of decency in the Ministry of Defence or in government—not only the present Government, but Governments since the 1960s—those men and their families would have received just compensation. How it must have stuck in their throats, and the throats of other service men, last week to read in the newspaper that a woman police officer received compensation of £175,000 because she developed a permanent ear problem while on a surveillance exercise mission. Right though that was, it is pitiful that we treat our service men and women so disgracefully in comparison.
The nuclear test veterans are not the only veterans. The Gulf war veterans still struggle, as do our civilians who went to the Gulf. I have lost count of the times that I have raised with the Ministry of Defence the issue of civilians who went to the Gulf, trying to get them the same rights. We must ensure that people are given the support that they need.
Ex-service personnel deserve more recognition than the Government's proposed veterans section will offer. It will not do much more than the Royal British Legion does now. It needs to have more clout and to be assured that the Ministry will listen to what it says. I do not want a repeat of what has happened in the past.
For all the advances in technology—even the development of remote-controlled aeroplanes and tanks and virtual reality training, which we have heard about today—the Army still relies on people, as the Minister rightly recognised last week. The Army is nothing without the people who serve it. I hope that the Government will take the current opportunities to change the way in which we value Army personnel. We should not have to wait for an armed forces Bill in 2000. The Minister should act on equal opportunities now to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to serve.
We need answers to questions about the Territorial Army units. We do not want a garage sale of TA assets. There is already speculation that the TA's prime city centre site in Portsmouth will be sold for redevelopment. The unit is still meeting there and there are still advertisements on the tube asking people to join the TA. We should put a caveat underneath, saying that it comes with a health risk, because anyone who joins may not be in the TA for long.
We need clear targets and clear knowledge of what the Government expect of the British Army. We need measures on overstretch now. We should never again have
388
to hear of British soldiers working a 98-hour week in peace time. We should treat our ex-service personnel with more respect. If we do not do that, debates such as today's will be repeated year after year. The SDR gave us the opportunity to do a lot more for the men and women who serve the armed forces of this country and the civilians who back them. I had hoped that the Government would have taken the opportunity gladly and delivered more commitment to them than we have seen so far.
6.31 pm
Mr. Jeff Ennis: I am delighted to be able to participate in this evening's debate on the Army. I was not called to speak in last week's debate on the strategic defence review, so I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on the SDR. It has been well received by our armed forces and our allies, as well as by the defence industry in general.
However, I should like to confine most of my comments to one proposal being considered as part of the SDR, which relates specifically to the Army and was raised in last week's debate by my hon. Friends the Members for City of York (Mr. Bayley) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook)—the proposal to combine the Land Command second division, which currently has its headquarters in York, with its Scottish division, which has its headquarters in Edinburgh, to create a new Land Command division with troops in both Scotland and the north of England.
Last week, the Minister for the Armed Forces told the House that he will shortly be deciding whether the merger should go ahead and whether the intended headquarters should be in York or Edinburgh. As a Member for a South Yorkshire constituency, I believe that there are many compelling reasons for the decision—if the choice has to be made—to come down in favour of York.
Dr. Godman: May I point out briefly to my hon. Friend that many of us in Scotland believe that there are compelling reasons why the headquarters should be located in Edinburgh? I am not referring to the Scottish National party's avowed intention of creating a Scottish Army. I am saying that the British Army headquarters in this case should be in Edinburgh.
Mr. Ennis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that he will explain later in the debate why he thinks that the headquarters should be in Edinburgh.
From a military perspective, 80 per cent. of the regular soldiers in the combined division would be based in the north of England, with only 20 per cent. in Scotland. All hon. Members must be aware that the north of England is the British Army's core recruiting area, supplying 39 per cent. of all recruits, compared with only 12 per cent. coming from Scotland. My two home towns of Barnsley and Doncaster have strong traditions as fertile recruiting grounds for all the armed forces, particularly the Army.

389
The Duke of Wellington's regiment is the only organisation that currently enjoys the honour of the freedom of the borough of Barnsley.
Mr. Blunt: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. The 13th/18th Royal Hussars and their successors, the Light Dragoons, also enjoy the freedom of Barnsley.
Mr. Ennis: I stand corrected on that point.
The Army must retain a major military headquarters in the north of England, which provides far more of its manpower than any other UK region. That presence will be even more important when the Territorial Army is restructured. There are 11,600 regular soldiers stationed in the north of England, but the region has only one major-general. Scotland has only 2,950 regular soldiers, but has two major-generals. The north of England's only general would be lost if the new division's headquarters were based in Edinburgh.
From an economic perspective, Yorkshire has lost 45 per cent. of its Ministry of Defence civilian staff over the past six years, while Scotland has lost just 23 per cent. Yorkshire has only 3,300 Ministry of Defence civilian staff, while Scotland has 9,500.
Finally, from a political perspective, the previous Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) received a petition to retain the headquarters in York. signed by 24 lord mayors and mayors from throughout the north of England. That has been supported by written representations from many north of England regimental associations. When my hon. Friend makes his choice, I know that his decision will be based solely on what is best for the defence of the UK, north and south of the border—and rightly so. The ideal solution to the problem would be to establish the new command headquarters in York, but retain a major-general in Edinburgh to command the troops, as well as for other ceremonial purposes. I understand that the Ministry has already agreed a similar arrangement for London, which will retain its major-general even though it does not have enough soldiers to form a division.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take cognisance of my points, as well as the many other related points that my hon. Friends the Members for City of York and for Stockton, North raised on the issue in last week's debate on the SDR.
6.37 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to have been called to participate in the debate. It is particularly appropriate for me to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis), because I should like to cover some of the same ground.
I pay tribute to the armed forces in my constituency. Those at Dishforth and Topcliffe barracks are particularly relevant to the debate, but I also pay tribute to the volunteers in the Territorial Army and my constituents who work at York barracks in the constituency of the City of York. I should also like to mention the contribution made by RAF Leeming and RAF Linton.
390
With regard to the proposed closure of York barracks, I should like to make the case for retaining a two-star command headquarters at Imphal in the City of York—the neighbouring constituency to mine. The implications for employment nationally and locally are compelling. At national level, the military staff leaving the barracks will be redeployed elsewhere in the country. The implications for local employment and the local economy are severe. Following relocation of the second division headquarters, civilian employees—the locally based labour force who commute from the Vale of York—will become unemployed, causing serious repercussions. They will probably have difficulty finding non-defence industry employment. Their loss of spending power will damage the local economy, and loss of revenue to shops and businesses in the Vale of York will be very serious.
Although it is true that the Vale of York is primarily a rural constituency, 30 per cent. of the population reside in areas in the city of York such as Haxby, Wigginton, Poppleton, New Earswick, Clifton Moor, Clifton Without and Rawcliffe. Many of my constituents work in York barracks or benefit, through shops and businesses, from the spending power of those who do. The total annual fall in local income in direct, indirect and induced losses in the wider York area following relocation of the second division headquarters is estimated to be £7.2 million at today's prices. It is clearly difficult to calculate exactly what percentage of that income would have been spent in the Vale of York. Of the total of 294 job losses, a substantial number will undoubtedly be lost among constituents in the Vale of York. Although the city of York may be compensated in part by income from alternative uses of the site, such benefit will not accrue in the Vale of York in the long term.
From a defence, operations and capability perspective, I am concerned that the Land Command will be too removed from the area it serves, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough pointed out. I remind the House that, until quite recently—eight to 10 years ago—the command headquarters was based at Colchester barracks in East Anglia. Moving it again must put into question its effectiveness and hands-on control. If it is to be moved to an even more remote location—we do not yet know where—such effectiveness would be put at even greater risk.
Of further concern to operations and back-up in the Regular Army must be cuts in the Territorial Army, to which other hon. Members have referred. Let us be clear, the cuts have nothing to do with modernisation of the armed forces or improvement of their operability. The changes proposed amount to direct cuts in services that are needed to meet the commitments of front-line Army operations. Hon. Members would appreciate the Minister coming clean on that point.
I should like to pay tribute to the role that the TA plays in the armed forces. The tradition of the Territorial Army is highly and widely regarded in the Vale of York. Many of my constituents have served and continue to serve the local area and the country in the TA, of which we are extremely proud. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the future role of the TA in the Vale of York, North Yorkshire and the country generally will be secured.
I hope that the Minister accepts that cuts to the TA are shortsighted and regrettable. They will reduce adaptability in the face of future threats, especially in dealing with the unexpected. I hope that the Minister, his Department and

391
the Government will reconsider the level of proposed cuts. Can he really tell the House, hand on his heart, that the proposal for 40,000 volunteer established reserves in the TA is sufficient to meet all future commitments?
Mr. Swayne: There has been considerable talk about overstretch. There is already overstretch in the Territorial Army. The TA is tasked largely with carrying the entire "Keeping the Army in the Public Eye" programme, running the executive stretches and business challenges. Soldiers in the squadron in my constituency are out every weekend. They are already overstretched. How we are to carry that load, with all its implications for recruitment, I cannot understand.
Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The problem of undermanning and overstretch is one that we can all understand. Why then target the one sector—the TA and other armed forces reserves—that is capable of meeting any future unpredictable overstretch or undermanning?
Those who live in Vale of York are concerned about the decision to bring the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations boundaries into line with the new regional command structure. Although it might at first sight seem sensible, I wonder how the proposal will operate in practice. According to the Defence Committee's report, merging the north-eastern and Yorkshire TAVRAs will simply not work. The area covered will stretch from Berwick-upon-Tweed to north Lincolnshire. That is simply too large an area in which reasonably to expect the maintenance of a local presence. How, in practice, will an already undermanned and overstretched TA meet its commitments within the new boundaries?
I should like to end on a local note. The Duchess of Kent's military hospital in Catterick, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, has provided years of medical care—primarily to constituents of my right hon. Friend, although some of mine have been treated there, too. Since the hospital will no longer be available to treat civilian patients, they will have to be treated at national health service hospitals. The extra burden placed on those NHS hospitals is calculated by the local hospital trust—this is a conservative estimate—to be £500,000 a year. Do the Minister and his Government consider it appropriate that that shortfall should be met by the defence budget? Could he possibly raise that this week with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that the Chancellor may include details of the necessary arrangements in his statement next week?
6.47 pm
Mr. Steve McCabe: I am grateful that, as we approach Remembrance Sunday, we should have this opportunity to reflect on the past achievements of the Army and to think about their future role, so that we can ensure that our security considerations and obligations at home and abroad are adequately catered for in the months and years ahead. This debate gives us an opportunity to remember the very difficult roles that we expect our troops to perform around the globe. They have faced tremendous risks during the troubles in Northern Ireland and made extraordinary efforts in Bosnia in quite appalling conditions. They are stationed in
392
Cyprus and, at this very moment in Belize, 700 troops are preparing to face the wrath of hurricane Mitch. In addition, many others are on attachments and missions around the world.
Our Army has a tremendous and proud history which has earned it respect and admiration around the globe—but times are changing. It is surely clear that, today, we need an Army that is capable of responding to new challenges. That is why we must welcome the concept of jointery, and the better co-ordination of all three services that will result from the strategic defence review. It is why we should support the principle of two combat divisions, and the proposals that the Minister has already described to put our brigades on a cycle of training and high readiness for deployment that will enable them to meet the demands that we make on them.
We need to recognise both how overstretched the Army has become, and the dangers that still exist, while acknowledging the Government's efforts to address them. Conservatives are sometimes tempted to claim a monopoly in patriotism and in support for our forces—but I wonder how a party that left our Army so under-resourced, and under strength to the tune of 5,000 personnel, can hold its head up. With its track record, how on earth does the Conservative party dare accuse any of us of humbug?
I see that the chief accuser, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), is off causing mischief elsewhere; his was a short contribution to the debate.
Dr. Julian Lewis: As the hon. Gentleman has made that challenge, and to give him time to get back to his text, may I tell him that it is easy for the Conservative party to hold up its head over its record on defence because, throughout the cold war, when the Labour party and three quarters of its parliamentary representatives wanted us to get rid of our strategic nuclear deterrent in a one-sided way, the Conservative party, alone of the three main parties in the House, stood up for the nuclear deterrent, backed NATO and saw off the threat from the Soviet Union?
Mr. McCabe: I am grateful for that intervention, but I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that what I am interested in is a broad-based British Army under the control of the Government, owing allegiance to the Queen; I am not interested in the military wing of the Conservative party. To be against nuclear destruction does not mean that one lacks patriotism or a concern for defence.
As I said, I welcome our new priorities for conflict—[Laughter.] I obviously lost the thread of that part of my text, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I had better start again. I welcome our new priorities for conflict prevention and defence diplomacy, and I am mindful of the comments by the Chief of the Defence Staff, who said that our reform of the military
"gives us a stability that we haven't had before and will be very well received by the Servicemen and Servicewomen who are currently serving".
Change can be painful. I am aware that there is some concern about the proposed reduction in the Airborne Brigade, but surely what we want is a functional Army, not forces that live solely on past achievements. If the last major parachute combat drop was in Suez back in 1956, a good case can be made for restructuring, even where there are long and proud traditions.

393
I acknowledge that there must be changes in the Territorial Army as our priorities shift. I support the idea of improving the deployability and usability of our TA reserves. We also need to find out why 30 per cent. of TA recruits leave within a year of joining, and what can be done to improve that position.
I hope that it is made abundantly clear that our aim is to reform the Territorial Army, and that there is no question of easing it out of existence. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) did not hear me, so I am happy to repeat what I said. I hope that we can make it abundantly clear that our aim is to reform the TA, not to ease it out of existence.
Mr. Gray rose—
Mr. McCabe: I know that the idea attracts criticism, both within the regular Army and from other quarters. One of the problems is that some of the Territorial Army's supporters can at times be more obsessed with tradition than with functional use. None the less, it has a valuable role to play. Its efforts in Bosnia have been outstanding, and I know of the rich range of skills that its members possess and the value that they add to so many areas of life, because of my own contacts with the 5th (Warwickshire) battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. Now it is my turn to get in a plug for my own Territorial Army outfit, although in fairness I must confess that it is based in the neighbouring constituency of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McCabe: By all means.
Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for repeating his earlier comments, but it was not that I had failed to hear them; it was simply that I could hardly credit my ears. Apparently he believes that a reduction from 59,000 active members of the Territorial Army to what, if we remove the officer training corps, and with the removal of virtually all the infantry and yeomanry, is effectively 37,000, is something other than doing away with that part of the Territorial Army. I am grateful to him for his support of his local regiment—but it will disappear.
Mr. McCabe: I simply repeat the point that I was making, that we must look at the functional use. Tradition is important, but it does not deal with defence.
I should like to see more imaginative use made of the Territorial Army. It could have a clear role in supporting local authorities during emergencies and disasters—[Interruption.] With respect, the Army is not engaged solely in defence, vital though that may be.
We should also think about whether the Territorial Army could have a role to play in the new deal, especially with the environmental task force. I wonder whether there is a prospect of considering some kind of voluntary national service, in which young unemployed people could train to acquire new skills to enable them to help both locally and, perhaps, abroad. We must stop thinking about the Territorial Army as it existed in the past.
Mr. Owen Paterson rose—
Mr. McCabe: No, thank you.
394
We must stop adhering solely to previous traditions. We have to think about functional use for the future.
As I said earlier, I welcome the Government's reforms, and there are areas in which there may be scope for further reform. I wonder whether, at the end of the cold war, we can really justify continuing to station one quarter of our army on the continent. I have doubts as to the value of that.
It is also important to think about personnel arrangements in the Army. Other hon. Members have said that it is important to equip the Army properly, but it is the quality of the personnel that gives our forces their strength, and we must ensure that the pay and conditions of service reflect their high value and the high esteem in which we hold them. I also hope that we will tackle the issues that other hon. Members have raised about the plight of veterans.
We need to deal with other aspects of life in the Army. I welcome the proposals to increase the number of posts available to women, and to set new targets to boost recruitment for our country's ethnic minorities. I want to see an Army that genuinely reflects British society. That has to mean more women and more members of ethnic minorities at all levels. In particular, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, it must mean an end to the situation in which the officer corps is largely confined to white men from a particular class and stratum of society. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South gave the figures earlier. Hon. Members may choose to say that what I say is not true, but the figures are there.
I would like to see an end to the horrendous bullying and brutality to which some recruits are subjected. All of us must have been appalled at the murder of the young Danish tour guide in Cyprus by British soldiers, and by the occasional loutish and brutish behaviour of British soldiers in Ayia Napa, which is more reminiscent of the behaviour of football hooligans than British Army personnel. Such behaviour disfigures our Army and undermines the wonderful efforts of our soldiers around the globe. Let us make sure that, in future, there is no place for racism, other forms of discrimination, bullying or thuggery in our forces.
As we approach Remembrance Sunday, I want to remember the good things that our forces do, and have done, and the tremendous sacrifices that they have made. I want to look forward to a modern, efficient Army that reflects our society and plays a major peacekeeping and crisis-management role wherever it is needed. Finally, I should like to see a Regular Army that can be supported and reinforced by TA reserves whose effort and commitment are properly recognised. However, it must be a TA that is based on modern requirements. There is no point in nostalgically looking at what used to be.
7 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) got so confused reading out his speech that he almost did not appear to have written it. I have recently been with the Army on the armed forces parliamentary scheme with two Labour Members—the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow)—and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). The purpose of

395
the scheme is to ensure that those who have had too little contact with the Army in the past spend some time with the Army at the sharp end and understand what the Army is all about. The hon. Member for Hall Green might like to get in touch with the former Member of Parliament Sir Neil Thorne and volunteer to join the scheme next year. He would then understand the staggering ignorance that he has displayed this evening.
Mr. McCabe: First, I would be more than happy to join the scheme, but I am currently busy with the West Midlands police parliamentary liaison scheme, which teaches the same sort of thing. There is a limit on my time, as there is on that of most hon. Members. Secondly, it is dangerous and arrogant of the hon. Gentleman to assume that I know nothing about the Army, or to dare to suggest that my words are not my own.
Mr. Hawkins: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman wrote his speech, even though he got confused in reading out a lot of it.
There is a memory loss among some Labour Members in relation to the cold war, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made clear in an earlier intervention. Labour Members have suggested repeatedly that the previous Conservative Government were mistaken in making the changes in "Options for Change" and "Front Line First" without apparently understanding that it was absolutely necessary to recast our armed forces in light of the collapse of the Warsaw pact. We are criticising the Government's suggestion in the strategic defence review that huge further cuts are needed, especially in our reserve forces.
I am staggered that Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Hall Green should suggest that there could be scope for even further cuts, and that there is a need to damage further the traditions of the armed forces. It is clear to those of us who have spent time with the forces, who come from services families or who, like me, have sons who are cadets, that morale is crucial to recruitment and retention. I hope that the Minister will concede that when he winds up. The cap badge traditions are vital to morale, and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the traditions of the British Army can be carelessly tossed away is staggeringly complacent. I hope that, on reflection, he will realize—as he will if he reads the excellent Defence Committee report in response to the strategic defence review—that his views were sadly misconceived.
I want to refer briefly to some constituency issues. I must apologise to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench and to the Minister for the fact that a long-standing commitment means that I will not be present to hear the winding up speeches. However, my constituency concerns go much wider than purely parochial matters.
As the Minister understands, anyone who cares about the British Army is concerned about what happens in Camberley. The Minister will be aware that I have referred to the issue a number of times at Defence questions in the past 18 months. It is not acceptable for Ministers to give both oral and written answers in which they tell my constituents that they will be able to announce what will happen to the staff college buildings in Camberley "shortly", but still—after 18 months—not to give an answer.
396
I hear that there is now a prospect that the joint doctrine centre may go into the staff college buildings. I hope that, at long last, the Minister will be able to confirm whether that is the case. If he is not able to say so tonight, perhaps he or one of his right hon. Friends would confirm that in writing. My constituents are concerned that that important listed building is being allowed to stay empty and unused. It is important that a proper, high-profile military use is found for it.
I want to hear from the Minister about the future of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and the disposals that are anticipated in relation to DERA land. Once again, if he cannot deal with that matter tonight, I hope that he will write to me subsequently.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—in a brief intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)—referred to the crucial role of the Territorial Army in terms of keeping the Army in the public eye. Those of us who have spent time with the armed forces know that everybody in the TA is well aware of the vital role they fulfil in terms of making the public aware of the forces. I realise that the present Labour Cabinet may be the first Cabinet ever not to have a single member with service in the armed forces, but I have no doubt that all Ministers are aware of the TA's vital role in keeping the Army in the public eye. If the TA changes—and if the Government's proposals in the strategic defence review are carried out—it will be much more difficult for it to perform that role.
The Government's proposals suggest that the TA might exist only in our major cities and will not have a national geographical "footprint", as it is called. The suggestion is that it will not be visible in rural and suburban areas, and that is a damaging prospect. I heard on the grapevine that one of the TA units earmarked for possible closure and disposal of its site is in Camberley, and that is extremely worrying for my constituents. I hope that, on reflection—and once all the consultations are in—the Government will decide to reverse their damaging proposals for a severe cut in the TA, as announced in the strategic defence review.
The fitness of the private soldier is also important for recruitment, retention and morale. The couch potato culture that sadly exists among many of our teenagers became evident during our visit to the Army training regiment in Pirbright, next door to my constituency. Much longer training periods are required and the training regiment even has remedial platoons because so many young soldiers cannot attain the relatively modest initial fitness levels. The Minister knows that that has a serious effect on training. The health of recruits is vital. Sadly, there have been a number of tragedies recently during training, which concerns the Minister as it should concern every hon. Member. I hope that we can ensure more fitness training and a gradual improvement in the standard of recruit fitness, which will help to prevent such tragedies.
The Minister will want to work closely with colleagues in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, but they made a catastrophic error when they allowed their colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment to remove sport from the core national curriculum. Only with sport in the core curriculum, as it was under the previous Government, can we ensure that

397
tomorrow's recruits are of the required fitness standard, which is vital if we are to develop the sort of young soldiers that we need for the future.
Finally, I hope that what was undoubtedly a Treasury-led, rather than a foreign policy-led, strategic defence review, with many of the deals that were struck behind closed doors based on flogging off Territorial Army centres, will be reconsidered. I hope that we will have an opportunity to build the sort of Army that we need for the 21st century, not the sort that is based on cuts to do a deal with the Treasury.
7.11 pm
Mr. Andrew Reed: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Obviously, the parliamentary scheme has taught him to make a tactical withdrawal at the first sign of fire, as he moved from Blackpool, South to the relative safety of Surrey before May 1997.
I have much in common with the hon. Gentleman and would like to add to his comments about fitness levels. As he knows, we share many views on the importance of sport to our nation, in particular for young people. I am delighted that, as from 1 October, we have ended—hopefully—the sale of school playing fields. We lost so many under the Conservative Government and that contributed greatly to the present level of unfitness.
I am relieved that my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) have withdrawn. They gave us Edinburgh versus York and, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, is rather large and was sitting next to me, he convinced me that York is a sensible place for the relocation when it happens.
I have no direct experience of the armed forces, although there is a Territorial Army base in my constituency and I was a member of the local authority there when large cuts were made in Leicestershire and the Charnwood borough under the previous Administration. We lost an airfield, a military base in Melton, the pay office in Wigston and a signals base in Charnwood. Cuts are not new and our armed forces have always been the subject of redistribution and change.
I have no family history in the armed forces, although my grandfather served in the first world war, but I am pleased to take part in this debate. Usually there is much cross-party consensus in such debates and it was a shame that some of that was destroyed today by the contribution of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. People often see us shouting across the Chamber at each other and it is important that on occasions like this we can have a sensible and rational debate about the future of our armed forces.
The Minister will be pleased to know that I am not here to lobby on behalf of the TA base in my constituency, although I am confident that the newly refurbished base, which cost £1.2 million between 18 months and two years ago, will be saved. I am confident that one would not want to waste such recently expended public money by closing it down and I understand that there are no proposals to do so.
398
As with other organisations, the Army is people based and I am glad to say that the language in the strategic defence review reflected that. We have heard much about the people's this and the people's that in the past 18 months and Conservative Members may be a little tired of hearing it, but I want to concentrate on the people-based armed forces that we need. I admit that I do not have great knowledge of the armed forces, but my experience as an outsider—seeing what is going wrong with the recruitment and retention of the next generation—may help a little. Those looking in from the outside recognise the great reputation and tradition of our armed forces. Everyone recognises the need for the cap badge mentality. People in the Army are proud of their traditions and their regimental flags. Their history is part of the tradition of the regiment and it is important that even Labour Members should recognise that.
People throughout the world recognise the tremendous reputation of our armed forces. We often say that our troops are some of the best in the world and perhaps it is true. Despite American bravado—too often evident on the international scene—about American troops being the best, our troops far outstrip them and I think that we can honestly say that they are the best. That is due to the fact that they are highly skilled, motivated and professional. However, we must recognise the importance not merely of front-line troops but of all those in the background, including those in support and logistics and civilians working in the Ministry of Defence.
I want to ensure that we not only demonstrate the sort of career that the armed forces can offer, but concentrate on the way in which the forces have treated people. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) mentioned one reason why people may be fearful to join the armed forces—the way in which we have treated our Gulf war veterans and those who suffered because of nuclear tests. Some of my constituents have Gulf War syndrome, or whatever we have decided to call it. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to establish what illnesses are a result of that syndrome. So many questions still need to be answered. I urge him to outline what resources are being committed to the studies. Are they totally and genuinely open to scrutiny? What is the timetable for responses? I hope that it will be some time in the new year.
Our Army is people-based. Competition in the open labour market is considerable. What do the armed forces offer people compared with the other opportunities placed before them at the job centre? What can the Army uniquely offer individuals? We need to listen to the reasons why people are not joining the armed forces. It is not merely a knee-jerk reaction. We must genuinely understand the blocks that prevent the ordinary people whom we need to recruit from joining. There is no quick-fix solution, and nothing that has been said this evening will change that. A long-term commitment must be made. We all understand the figures; we know about overstretch and the idea that members of the armed forces are overworked.
We must ensure that joining the armed forces is a viable option not only for individuals but for their families, particularly in terms of welfare and education. The strategic defence review included initiatives for the coming years, but we need to move quickly. I was pleased by the inclusion of education and the key role given to lifelong learning—we must recognise the importance of

399
vocational and academic qualifications. When I have spoken to people in the armed forces, I have been impressed by their skills and the level of vocational qualifications that they have attained, which should be marketable in the open labour market when they decide to leave the forces.
I make a plea—I recognise that we may not be able to solve this problem in the short term—for those of my constituents who have left the armed forces with good qualifications and who may be confident in themselves, but who lack the ability to make the transition back into civilian life. We do not want to encourage too many people to leave, but we must recognise that many find the transition difficult. People also fear that they will become trapped in the forces and may not be able to move on. I want the forces to be able to retain people with skills, but we must do something to make the transition out of the forces easier.
Another problem, which I have discovered from talking to constituents who, for one reason or another, have not joined the Army, is the perception of the attitudes that are held in the forces. We have heard this evening about racism and sexism and the question of homosexuals in the forces. I find it frightening that, out of 14,000 officers, only 140 are from our black and Asian communities. In Loughborough, the TA has been reasonably successful in recruiting people from those communities, but it has been a small trickle. About 6,000 or 7,000 people from the ethnic minorities live within a mile or so of the TA base in Loughborough, yet we see only a handful of black and Asian faces in the organisation. We have a long way to go in increasing confidence among members of the ethnic minorities, so that they feel safe in the armed forces.
I should also mention sexism and the way in which we deal with the issue of homosexuals in the armed forces. I was slightly disturbed to hear the argument that, because of homophobia, members of the armed forces do not want homosexuals to join. We should recognise that, throughout history, homosexuals have played an important role in the armed forces but have been forced to keep their sexuality quiet.
Mr. Gray: This touchy-feely stuff is all very well, but does not the hon. Gentleman remember that the soldier's primary job is to close with the Queen's enemies and kill them? The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) may laugh, but that is the soldier's primary role. The best people to recruit to the Army are not necessarily those who reflect society in Britain today but those who will be qualified to close with the enemy and to kill him.
Mr. Reed: I am not sure which people the hon. Gentleman is suggesting are not able to do that job. Many black and Asian people played a vital role fighting for our nation in the second world war, and many homosexual individuals died in that war. I have no truck with his argument—people from those groups can serve happily in the armed forces, and it is plainly wrong to suggest otherwise.
Sexism is still a problem, as, for young individuals, is bullying. Conservative Members may talk about touchy-feely stuff, but it is not Labour Members who go on bonding weekends. Conservative Members spend much more time at weekends touching and feeling one another than we do, perhaps because the Opposition
400
Benches are not sufficiently full—Conservative Members cannot touch and feel one another during the week, so they feel that they have to go away at weekends to do so. The Labour Benches are always so full that the touchy-feely stuff comes day after day—[Interruption.] Well, on most occasions.
We must take major strides if the armed forces are to be ready for the 21st century. I agree that that entails our having a killing machine—call it what one will—but other skills are required as, for most of the time, the armed forces are involved in peacekeeping missions around the world. The armed forces must reflect society—if they exist to protect society, they must represent it. It would be dangerous if, in this multicultural Britain, only a thin strata of society fought at the front.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider all aspects of recruitment and retention, to improve what the job offers and the facilities available for families and the education of children. We must put at the forefront the needs of the armed forces, but we must also ensure that families feel part of the forces. As Members of Parliament, we are only too aware of families being torn apart—it happens to us weekly—but the way in which the armed forces treat the family, which can play an important supportive role, is sometimes wholly wrong.
We must ensure that there is zero tolerance of racism and sexism and that the armed forces are ready to face the challenges of the 21st century. We must be supportive, especially to the cadet movement, which is extremely strong in my constituency, as that will encourage people to be ready and motivated to join the armed forces.
This debate is not only about the TA; the problems are much deeper than some of us want to recognise. The Army is not an attractive option for many young people leaving schools, and the challenges exist for us all, not only for the ministerial team. As has been said, we are advocates for the armed forces in our constituencies, and we must make them an attractive option for future generations.
7.27 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), as I want to deal with a number of the issues that he raised, including the ethos of the Army, and the difficulties that arise for it in dealing with women and homosexuals.
First, I should declare an interest. I was a regular soldier for 12 years, and my father was a regular soldier for his whole career, as were both my grandfathers—by background, I am soaked in the Army. I hope that what I say will reflect some instinctive understanding of an institution of which I am immensely proud and which I am desperate to protect—I am anxious that it should not be damaged by any Administration.
Mr. John Smith: Should not the hon. Gentleman declare a further interest? He was a special adviser to the Conservative Govemment who imposed some of the biggest cuts on our armed forces in their entire history.
Mr. Blunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that the cold war came to an end during the Conservatives' time in office. It would be totally indefensible to expect defence expenditure now to be

401
about £33 billion, which is what it would be if it consumed the same proportion of gross domestic product that it did during the cold war.
Mr. Peter Brooke: My recollection of that period is that Labour Members barracked us for a peace dividend to be yielded at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Blunt: My right hon. Friend makes the point with the utmost eloquence.
Let me correct the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) further: I began my time as a special adviser to the Ministry of Defence in February 1993, and very shortly after that, we started adding back battalions and regiments of armoured reconnaissance to make up for some of the cuts following "Options for Change", which, at the edges, made judgments that were wrong, especially on infantry numbers and the amount of armoured reconnaissance. I am happy to concede that the strategic defence review has taken the process further, and made further welcome adjustments.
Mr. Hawkins: On the peace dividend from the end of the cold war, does my hon. Friend agree that the main reason for the collapse of the Warsaw pact was the resolve shown by a Conservative Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and United States President Ronald Reagan, and that, had the policies then and for many years advocated by Labour been followed, the Warsaw pact would probably be alive and well today?
Mr. Blunt: I wholly agree.
European defence should have been debated a week ago, when we discussed the strategic defence review. At 4.30 pm last Tuesday, when many hon. Members were debating the review, the Prime Minister was briefing journalists, including Mr. Philip Webster of The Times, on a major European Union defence initiative that he intended to float past fellow Heads of Government at Pörtschach.
Yesterday, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) told us of Chancellor Schröder's reaction to the proposals, but the House has not heard the proposals themselves. I made that point to the enforcer, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and asked whether it was a proper co-ordination of policy across Government that the Prime Minister should be briefing journalists on a major defence policy in Europe, with the Defence Ministers then in the House seemingly in ignorance of the proposals. I had a most interesting reply. He told me that the Prime Minister was not briefing Philip Webster.
When I wrote to the Minister for the Cabinet Office to ask him to correct the facts in the House, he replied:
"the Prime Minister was interviewed on the record by UK and European journalists, including Philip Webster… The interview covered ideas that might be considered with EU partners with a view to more effective defence co-operation. But, as I reflected in my reply, there was no question, as you alleged, of the Prime Minister briefing either Philip Webster or other journalists on a 'major revision to defence policy'."
402
There we have the answer. When is a briefing not a briefing? When it is an interview on the record. It remains a disgrace that no Minister has made a statement in the House about the proposals.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: It was indeed discourteous of the Prime Minister to have talked about a European dimension for defence while we were debating the review in the House. It has long been Liberal Democrat policy that there should be a European dimension to our defence. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) made a lot of comments about how the Government are dealing with the issue, but how do the Tories want to deal with it? Are they interested in a European dimension or not?
Mr. Blunt: Those points would be better put to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who speaks for the party, but I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support, and I hope that she will sign my early-day motion condemning the Prime Minister's actions, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has already done. I do not have time to answer her question.
Mr. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in the early 1950s, the decision by Sir Anthony Eden to commit four divisions to the British Army on the Rhine was taken specifically in support of a European defence agreement that then failed to get through the French Assembly?
Mr. Blunt: Indeed. Conservative Administrations since the second world war have a proud record of supporting European defence, since 1949 through the institution of NATO. As the Minister will no doubt remind us, the late Ernest Bevin's greatest achievement was helping to found the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
I thoroughly welcome the fact that the Government put people at the centre of the strategic defence review. The supporting essay on people quotes a member of the armed forces, I imagine, who said:
"If we don't look at personnel issues then the SDR will fail."
I wholly agree with Defence Ministers, and with the lady or gentleman who said that. I welcome this evening's news about recruiting figures, but that is the easiest part of putting overstretch right, because one can put a great deal of money into advertising campaigns and building up the recruiting structure. Retention, however, is equally, if not more, important.
The Army is the service most affected by undermanning, and the review must address the problem. I am afraid that the people measures set out in the review to try to improve retention are, frankly, pretty small beer. The review recognises the importance of the challenge. It says:
"They also understand that personnel policy alone cannot resolve the imbalances between wider Defence Policy, commitments and resources… If some of the proposals in our Policy for People seem modest it is only because we have promised what we can deliver. Addressing the personnel problems that affect the Armed Forces will take time, trust, and money."
That is the glaring contradiction running through the review: there is not enough money to deliver the policies for people that will enable it to be a success.

403
The section on service personnel goes on to say:
"To provide a framework for addressing the problems we have identified, we need a comprehensive personnel strategy to take the Armed Forces into the next century. It must: incorporate all that is best in current practice…especially the ethos and values needed to support operational capability".
On the specifics of what is to be done to help retention in the Army, the review says:
"We also aim to improve retention with a range of new measures including: enhancements to operational welfare"—
which I think means more telephone calls home—
"introduction of a common leave entitlement and a programme to improve standards of single living accommodation."
On further inspection, it turns out that that programme involves no new money, and was under way before the review took place.
If there is no reduction in the commitment for the armed forces, overstretch and retention problems will get worse, not better. There is a glaring contradiction, because of the requirement to deliver efficiency savings of 3 per cent. each and every year for four years to make the review work.
One might hope for a miracle from the appointment of General Sir Sam Cowan as Chief of Defence Logistics, but the effort to find £2 billion a year by the fourth year by combining the logistic operations of the three armed services will mean that the search for efficiency savings will go down through every level of the budget holders, until eventually individual units in individual base locations will have to scratch around for 3 per cent. savings each and every year. I hope that hon. Members will understand the scale of the task. It is equivalent to having to save 100,000 jobs in supporting the armed services. The armed forces have been set an enormous task, which has the potential, I fear, to destroy the policy for people that every hon. Member supports.
I am most concerned about the impact on the quality of life of service men and people in the Army. The Royal Armoured Corps is taking part in a conference, with commanding officers addressing subjects such as "How can we put the fun back in?", but what happens when one searches for yet more efficiency savings on top of the £6 billion a year efficiency savings that have already been made in the past 10 years? What happens to money for adventure training, for single service men's accommodation, and for people to be able to mount expeditions, which we want as many young officers as possible to undertake? All those things get squeezed.
When young officers, for example, plan exercises, they will find that there is no money for transport, and that the spares allocation is insufficient to support the exercises that they want to take their soldiers on. All those things impact on the quality of life and motivation of service men and Army officers and soldiers.
That financial pressure on the day-to-day administration of service men's life is administered the coup de grace by political correctness. That is where the strategic defence review is absolutely right to address the issue of ethos. We have to protect it, but the ethos of the Army is changing.
One of the problems is the fear of the chain of command being politically incorrect and prepared to stand up for the young men and women who are under its command. There are all sorts of issues. The one that I
404
want to address is that of integrating women into the armed forces and how difficult a challenge that is in units where it is happening, particularly the Royal Artillery, which, in the fighting echelon, is the furthest forward in relation to women making their presence felt.
What Ministers must understand is what the Army is for in peacetime. It is about training for war. What we try to ensure is that, when soldiers go into battle, they are inoculated against battle shock and the squalid, appalling conditions that they will find in war. We can replicate those conditions in peace, so that, when they face those conditions, they have trained for them and are still able to operate.
That is why our elite units are trained so toughly and to such a high standard. We are able to do that with units such as the Special Air Services, the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marines, because we select an elite to undertake that quality of training; but the rest of the Army has to strive for those standards.
If we then impose on the rest of the Army a politically correct vision of how they should carry out their training, we are hobbling young officers and junior non-commissioned officers who are trying to achieve the highest training standards. They become frightened to lead and to manage, because they see their senior officers taking cover under what one might describe as a politically correct umbrella. They take cover behind regulations.
We all know what it means to run into a jobsworth. The more regulations and political correctness are imposed on the Army and other armed services, the more difficult it becomes for young men and women to lead, to take the initiative and to achieve the standards for which our armed forces are peerless in the world.
I use one example, of which I hope the Minister will take note, of one young man who showed initiative. His name is Major Milos Stankovic. One of the few Serbo-Croat speakers in the British Army, he worked for General Sir Michael Rose, among other commanders, directly in Bosnia. Major Stankovic's job, with a Serb father, strangely enough, was to win the confidence of Mr. Karadzic and General Mladic, and to get close to them, to enable General Rose to talk with authority on them and to find out what their intentions were.
We all know that the Americans had it in for General Sir Michael Rose. It appears that the CIA picked up various communications of Major Stankovic when he was carrying out his duties, doing his job for the British Army with initiative, possibly taking that initiative to the limits that a young officer should. When he came home to the UK to go on an Army staff course, he was arrested during a lecture. He has spent more than a year being investigated by the Ministry of Defence police, which is plainly totally out of its depth in conducting an investigation that will, I assume, involve signals intelligence, the CIA, MI5 and MI6 and goodness knows what other agencies.
If after a year—frankly, if after a month—a case could not be brought against Major Stankovic, it should be dropped. This is a young man who was doing his duty for his country and whose career has been sacrificed because the MOD police have been unable to carry out a proper investigation.
I use that as an example of the sort of initiative that is shown by young men and young officers, but then the umbrella goes up and everyone hides from the

405
responsibility, saying, "It is all sub judice. We cannot do anything about it." That is what happens when young men show initiative and their service and Ministers do not protect them. What message does it send to other members of the armed forces?
Homosexsuality poses a serious threat to the future ethos of the armed forces. There is an existing modus vivendi. Of course there are homosexuals in the armed forces, but, "Don't ask, don't tell," is effectively what we have. If their homosexuality is invisible to other people, it is not an issue, but the moment we change the rules and impose a right for people to be overtly homosexual in the armed forces, in platoons of infantry and in ships, we have begun to undermine the essential fabric that goes to make up the necessary ethos that makes men fight for each other. Of course, we are most concerned with the fighting echelon, where that necessary team work has to exist. I urge hon. Members to listen to the armed forces, because they are the ones whose ethos is under threat from this change.
If Ministers proceed with this change, the one thing that they will have to deliver is single service men's accommodation of en-suite bathrooms, and single accommodation for every service man in the armed forces. That is going to be a fabulously big bill. That would be an absolute minimum requirement.
Mr. Reed: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, because of homophobia within the armed forces, we should not have homosexuals? Because there is racism in the armed forces, is he suggesting that we do not have black and Asian people in for the same reason?
Mr. Blunt: I am not for a moment making that suggestion. There is no equivalence between racism and homosexuality. It is impertinent of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there is.
Having dealt with my worries about the threats to the ethos and the policy of those who serve in the Regular Army, I turn to the Territorial Army. When I heard the Under-Secretary speak this morning, I wondered what planet he was on. He told us that the proposals for the TA were good news. That contrasts with the view of the vice-chairman of the council of the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association, Colonel Putnam, who told the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence:
"the announcement of the SDR was a black day for the Territorial Army and we are now very concerned as to what the final structure will look like."
Ministers should understand that their proposals for the TA are strategically, politically and administratively wrong. In the words of the Defence Committee, unanimously supported by all its members—including seven Labour Members—they are "misconceived".
I received a letter from Colonel Putnam yesterday. Ministers should be aware of what is happening to members of TAVRA and the TA as they try to put Government proposals into action. Colonel Putnam wrote:
"Over the last two weeks the situation has deteriorated in that 'horse trading' is now being conducted over the identification and selection of TA centres for sale to meet the now reinforced requirements of proceeds from the sale of TA Centres hitting the target for the budget for the fiscal year 1999/2000.
406
The rush for selection is now 'carving up' the plans made and submitted to date. In other words, there is pressure to identify TA Centres that can be sold quickly, ignoring the footprint and defence solutions. Whilst this confirms clearly that fiscal pressures are driving the TA and other elements of the SDR, it has placed everyone involved in the process both within this Association and the chain of command in a position where we can no longer be honest with our Volunteers, our MPs, employers, civic authorities and all others interested in defence and the Reserves."
That is where the appalling proposals for the TA have led. I hope that, if the Minister cannot rescue the situation, he will at least ameliorate it.
I conclude by becoming a little parochial. I am concerned about what is happening to the Territorial Army in the south-east. Current proposals suggest the TA will have 970 all ranks across four counties in the south-east. That is a reduction of 48 per cent. If the proposals were based properly on a footprint of our population, the south-east would have some 2,756 volunteers for the TA, instead of the dismal number proposed. Colonel Putnam's letter concludes:
"we are in danger of having been forced to design a TA, particularly for the Infantry and Royal Engineers, that is not viable as it will lack opportunity which will increase turnover and will not, over a period of time, be worth joining."
In last week's debates on the strategic defence review, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) hoped that the engineering unit in his constituency would survive. The proposals will take five regiments of engineers out of the TA order of battle—and that is not to mention the proposals to destroy the yeomanry and the infantry. If stories about the appalling names to be given to successor units—such as the Home Counties battalion—are true, I fear that they will lack any cohesion or esprit de corps.
Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that some motive may lie behind these suggestions? In a few years, when the turnover and the number of vacancies on the establishment have increased, Ministers will be able to get rid of the remainder, because it is under strength.
Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We should have learnt that lesson already from what has happened to the Regular Army in trying to manage the reductions from "Options for Change". There was a widespread impression that the Army no longer needed recruits because it was downsizing. In fact, the redundancies that took place were intended to ensure that the Army retained a proper structure of age, rank and experience. We are in danger of sending the same message about the TA. if the units cannot offer people the loyalty of serving alongside their mates, that will be highly deleterious.
The TA centre in Reigate is going to close, along with the field troop of 127 Field Squadron, which is part of one of the five regiments of engineers that will go. That will have an effect on the associated Army cadet force hut in Reigate. Lieutenant Graham Cromer, who leads that ACF detachment, has told me the benefits that the ACF receives from collocation with the TA. They include support from instructors, visits to see adult members of the TA at work, seeing equipment, and the opportunity to train with the TA. The ACF and TA can also jointly mount recruiting exercises. Reigate has a. 22 range administered by the ACF, and used by other ACF detachments and Reigate grammar school combined cadet force. All that will go if the site is sold.

407
The Defence Committee was told that it would cost £130,000 on average to replace each cadet hut. If 150 units are threatened, that adds up to an enormous sum, for which no provision has been made. While they wait for their huts to be rebuilt, the units will begin to disintegrate. The ACF lives on the enthusiasm of its volunteer leaders, both military and civilian. When they are dispossessed, the Government's good intentions and the words of the Under-Secretary about the value of the ACF as a youth movement will fall apart.
I am sorry to have detained the House so long, but I hope that hon. Members will understand. The Army is an institution of which I am fiercely proud. I want it to be protected. Its fate lies in the hands of Ministers, and particularly in those of the Minister of State. We look to him to ensure that, when his term of office ends, the condition of the Army is at least as good it is today—if not better.
7.56 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall ask the Minister some brief questions on personnel management matters, but first I should reply to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who implied that no one on the Labour Benches or their families had any military experience. I am proud that my father, who served with an infantry regiment, was awarded the Military medal for an act of bravery in the field. For my part, I have the honour—which some would call dubious—of being the only Member of Parliament who served in the Royal Military police. I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) had some association with that fine body of men and women.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) has left the Chamber, because her intervention on the European dimension was interesting. I believe that circumstances will force the European Union to develop a defence dimension because America is turning in on itself. One day, growing pressure in the USA will result in military disengagement from European defence structures. I am sorry that no member of the Scottish National party is here because we could have been entertained to a disquisition on the founding of a Scottish army after independence next May. Perhaps we will hear more of those plans closer to then.
I have some concerns about the Government's personnel policies. I have often seen our soldiers in Northern Ireland performing their arduous duties commendably. I think that I told you not long ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that while in south Armagh late last year, I saw some young Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders guarding the border there in difficult circumstances. I was in the company of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), whose constituent I am while living in London. I was proud to see those lads. I am talking about teenagers who were engaged in the war against the vicious fascist terrorists who claimed that they were conducting a military campaign. How absurd and obscene it is to argue that they were conducting a military campaign in a mature parliamentary democracy. Some of those youngsters were constituents of ours. I have seen our young soldiers in places such as Bosnia. I was proud of the way in which they too have performed their difficult task.
Speaking as an MP, and an ex-MP, I believe that our infantrymen make excellent United Nations peacekeepers. They are among the finest, alongside the Irish and others,
408
including some from impoverished countries that put up soldiers to serve in peacekeeping forces. It reflects badly on America that it fails to pay its dues to the United Nations for peacekeeping operations.
On personnel issues, I have had numerous representations from constituents and others in the west of Scotland on the Territorial Army. The decisions will have to be implemented sensibly and tactfully. Cadet forces in the west of Scotland and elsewhere in Scotland—I leave English Members to argue their case—are in the main poorly equipped. I do not blame that on a Government who have been in office for only 15 months. I made the same complaint in opposition. Young lads and lasses are dead keen to serve in the cadet force but they are given equipment that is nothing short of a disgrace. Something must be done or their enthusiasm and motivation will be blunted.
I am not too unhappy that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) is not here. I want to engage in conflict with him on whether the major generals should be in Edinburgh or York. It makes good tactical sense for them to be in Edinburgh. I am not being biased or parochial. I am not speaking disinterestedly, but Ministers must consider closely the case for Edinburgh. I say that with all sympathy to my hon. Friends from Yorkshire.
As a young military policeman, I saw the bullying of young recruits. It still happens, unfortunately. When 17 or 18-year-olds, scores of miles from home—perhaps away from home for the first time in their lives—are bullied by non-commissioned officers or older soldiers, it is no wonder that so many quit in their first year. Not so long ago, I came across the case of a young girl soldier, a constituent of mine, who was subjected to dreadful harassment partly because of her accent. Her English corporal and squad instructor said that he could not understand her accent and made her life miserable, to the extent that she understandably quit and came back home. Every effort must be made to eliminate bullying and the bullies must receive condign punishment when convicted of such behaviour. Similarly, racial harassment must be eliminated. There is a perception in ethnic groups that youngsters in the forces are likely to suffer from such intimidatory behaviour.
Promotion must be based only on merit, talent and potential. With respect to all the ex-officers among the Conservatives, as a young national service man I had much greater respect for my regimental and company sergeant majors than for some of the chinless wonders with two pips on their shoulders. Many other ex-national service men would say the same.
The senior NCO is the backbone of any unit. No former officer can deny that fact. I thought that some of my senior NCOs were first-class people whom I would follow anywhere, even though I was a reluctant national service man; some of the officers—God forbid. I would not have crossed the street with them. Our Army must become classless. The youngster from Greenock with the west of Scotland accent should not be discriminated against and the Afro-Caribbean youngster should not be discriminated against in taking a commission and promotion into the officer ranks.
What is the Ministry of Defence's policy on offering re-engagement to soldiers convicted of the most serious crimes? Hon. Members in the previous Parliament may

409
recall that I complained about the re-engagement of Private Clegg. Have Guardsmen Fisher and Wright been offered re-engagement? Will the three young soldiers convicted of the dreadful rape and murder of a young Danish girl in Cyprus be offered it when they complete their prison sentences? I hope that the Minister can answer because I for one do not believe that soldiers convicted of heinous crimes should be re-engaged after they have served their terms of imprisonment. The forces are better off without them.
I want to speak on behalf of those young soldiers and others who took part in the nuclear tests. I am one of the very few hon. Members to have visited Maralinga in the state of South Australia. I saw the test sites and spoke to Australian veterans. While they said that their compensation was not adequate, it is reasonable to suggest to the Minister, as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), that Australian ex-service men have been treated more sympathetically than our nuclear test veterans. Those veterans, whose numbers decrease all the time, should be given more sympathetic consideration by the MOD and other Departments.
More needs to be done, particularly for our young recruits. The role of the NCO is to look after his or her young recruits, and to ensure that a youngster coming into a regiment is not bullied or subjected to racial harassment. All ranks—officers and NCOs—need to be educated if we are to eliminate racial harassment and the pernicious problem of the bullying of young recruits. Much more, as I say, needs to be done by all concerned.
8.10 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). He referred to our mutual experiences in Northern Ireland. One of the incidental pleasures of serving with him on such trips is to hear of his experiences in the royal military police. The House was the better for his being able to share some of that experience with us today. He promised to be brief, and through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can tell my colleagues on the Opposition Benches who are still waiting to speak that I shall be even briefer.
I must immediately declare an interest in that on Monday I lunched in the mess of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in the Tower of London, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). It was the annual luncheon for the Lord Mayor of London, which goes back to the link with the City of London Fusiliers. I was not lobbied, but I cannot say whether the same was true of the member of the Government who was present—the other parliamentary guest—the Under-Secretary of State for Health.
I should not sail under false colours. I am wearing a Sapper tie, and I am proud to do so. As a schoolboy, I rose to the rank of cadet captain, and one of the proudest moments of my life was to command 600 cadets for inspection by Lieutenant General Sir Brian Horrocks 46 years ago. I am old enough to have been trained on a drill book that instructed me on what to do with my sword in the event that I met His Majesty the King in a narrow trench.
410
I actively thought of becoming a regular soldier, but I damaged my knee in basic training for national service, and was eventually invalided out with a disability pension. Like Dr. Watson's old war wound from the Afghan wars, I still feel an occasional twinge.
When my brother, who is now a Lord Justice of Appeal, had a Sapper interview, he was asked whether he had had any relatives in the corps, and he replied, "My brother, Sir, was an acting lance corporal and my great-grand-uncle was a lieutenant general, both in the corps, and I hoped I might end up somewhere in between." I shall return to the Sappers before I conclude.
My first purpose in rising to speak is to support the Territorial Army units in my constituency. I did not speak in last week's debate on the strategic defence review, but on the second day I intervened in the opening speech of the Minister for the Armed Forces, who opened today's debate, and he gave me a helpful response, to which I shall return later.
The tradition of part-time military service in my constituency is long standing. Artillery lane in Spitalfields, on the edge of the City, goes back to a lease to an artillery company under the Tudors. In the 17th century, the Tower Ordnance and the Honourable Artillery Company both claimed that the land was theirs, and the HAC, with whom my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has so distinguished an association, moved to its present ground in Finsbury in 1641.
At the Westminster end of my constituency, Artillery row, where Politico's now stands, is derived from butts erected there in the reign of Elizabeth. The trained bands go back to the reign of her father. They were affiliated to what is now the HAC. They were the forerunners of the militia and today's TA. Four thousand of them were inspected by Queen Elizabeth at Greenwich in 1585. Under James I, they became four regiments under the command of the Lord Mayor. Their role in the civil war is well known. William III, in renewing their charter, insisted on a continuance of the HAC link. Only in 1794 were they reorganised as the City of London militia.
Similarly, the Military Company was founded in Westminster in 1615, and was modelled on the Spitalfields Artillery Company. It was commanded by a professional soldier, and trained in three and a half acres of land acquired in the north-west part of St. Martin's field. Their service lasted well nigh a century.
Gradually, the militia and yeomanry emerged. I draw attention to a personal constituency link that goes back to my most distinguished predecessor, Charles James Fox. Despite his falling out with his erstwhile ally Edmund Burke, who had reacted against the French revolution, Fox continued to argue passionately for the maintenance of the militia as a key component of the nation's defences against the French.
I shall now encourage the House by fast forwarding two centuries to my intervention last week in a passage in the speech of the Minister for the Armed Forces in which he was discussing ethnic recruitment. My constituency TA interest lies in the London Scottish Regiment, which is historically located in Westminster, based in Horseferry road, and is now part of the London Regiment; and in the Royal Green Jackets, which is headquartered in Mayfair. Other parliamentary colleagues represent the London Regiment's drill halls in Battersea,

411
Camberwell, Hornsey, Edgware, Balham and Chelsea. Overall, the London Regiment has a 12 per cent. ethnic strength, with 9 per cent. in the London Scottish, which has a very strong expatriate element.
As to the Royal Green Jackets, 20 per cent. in the regiment's volunteer arm in London are of ethnic origin. Perhaps still more remarkable is the fact that 43 per cent. of the cadet corps in Mayfair, to whom the TA link is so important, are of ethnic origin, and half their cadet corps contingent are from single parent families or broken homes. We should all thank God for the structure, decently administered, that the Army gives to those particular young lives.
When I intervened in the Minister's speech last week, I asked him what moral the MOD drew from these statistics. He acknowledged that lessons were to be learned from this experience. Because mine is an inner-city seat, I would be exceptionally sad to see those lessons and that achievement threatened by the Government's cull of the TA. I recognise that a Mayfair property offers the same temptation for development as the training grounds in Spitalfields and St. Martin's field offered in the 17th and 18th centuries, but it would be a tragedy, given the ethnic recruiting achievement and advancement of my constituents, if those notable assets were jeopardised when ethnic recruiting is properly so important. The Horseferry road site is not a similar prize, as it is only leased to the MOD in a forerunner arrangement to the private finance initiative.
I understand that one motivation for the reforms was to establish units nearer where people live rather than where they work. I have remarked before that 22 per cent. of the employed population of Greater London work in my constituency, and my 73 Greater London parliamentary colleagues are good enough to look after the other 78 per cent. If that is the pattern of people's lives in Greater London—and if it produces the great advances in ethnic recruiting in an inner-city seat to which I have referred—then working against the grain of London behaviour constitutes a massive risk.
I want to say a loyal word on behalf of the Sappers. I have not been directly briefed by them, so the Minister may correct what may have been a wrong impression on my part, although I have received reinforcement from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). My understanding of the review is that the third combat group is faced with a cut of half its Sapper element.
I mentioned earlier my Sapper great-grand-uncle, who became a lieutenant general. He was a bachelor who served in one imperial territory after another across the 19th century empire. I have his watercolours of the Crimea. Later, in Mauritius, where he was an early photographer, he helped build the roads, the port, the prison and the hospital. I mention that echo of more than a century ago to make the point that the Sappers are a major resource for civil works, which in civil life we would miss if the Sappers were cut to ribbons.
I feel immense vicarious pride in our soldiers. When I served in Northern Ireland, 4/5 Commando was serving in south Armagh in the winter of 1990–91, and saw its immediate next service in Iraq looking after the Kurds in the aftermath of the Gulf war. President Bush sent a four-star general to see how the military support for disadvantaged civilians was going. On his return to Brussels, the American general called Field Marshal
412
Sir Richard Vincent to say how impressed he had been with 4/5 Commando, adding that he had never seen soldiers handle civilians so sensitively. He went on to ask where we found them and where we trained them. Sir Richard replied simply, "We train them in south Armagh." God knows, we must all hope that the need for training or any activity in south Armagh is a thing of the past, but the episode is an index of the pride that I feel.
I close humbly with that legendary address by the padre to the departing battalion in the first war. He said:
"God go with you everywhere. I can only come as far as the station."
8.20 pm
Mr. John Smith: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). I apologise for having to slip out during his distinguished speech; I know that I must have missed a great deal. It is also a privilege to have an opportunity to speak twice in a week on such an important subject as the great British Army. It is good that the Government have found time for this debate at this point in the parliamentary timetable and just before Remembrance Sunday. I can think of no better topic than the British Army to discuss at this time.
As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I am conscious of a further privilege. Wales has a fine tradition that stretches back as far as the bowmen of Gwent at the battle of Agincourt, through to those courageous receivers of the Victoria Cross at Rorke's drift and right up to today, when I believe that the Welsh Guards were part of the guard of honour for the visiting president of Argentina. That is a symbol of just how great and how professional our forces are and what a fine job they do. Mr. Simon Weston—that veteran of the Falklands war, who was so badly scarred and damaged outwardly, but inwardly is a courageous man who has done so much since the war—had positive and constructive comments to make this week on the visit of the president.
We can be optimistic about the future of the British Army following the Government's strategic defence review. In general, the review has been good news for the Army after such a long period of changes, reviews and cuts, which created a great deal of the instability and uncertainty that has affected morale in the Army. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) referred to the low morale in the Army. I believe that it was due mostly to the way in which uncertainty affected professional men and women doing such a good job.
The truth of the matter is that yes, there was a peace dividend; there was a downsizing of our forces. I will be even more generous and say that Ministers in the Tory Government carried out those reviews with the best of intentions. However, the outcomes often bore no relationship to the intentions following the cold war. The reviews did not arrive at strategic solutions to the situation in which we found ourselves. They were a way in which to reduce the defence budget by not touching the commitments of our armed forces one iota, but cutting their resources and the wherewithal to achieve their goals in the world.
Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman will, therefore, join us in deprecating the fact that further changes are to be

413
imposed on the Army, including the requirement to achieve efficiency savings and a further £900 million a year cut in the defence budget.
Mr. Smith: Not at all—for two reasons. We are providing a stable budgetary environment for a minimum of three years—something that has never been done before. More importantly, we are providing a strategic environment for our forces which will last for the next two decades. That is exactly what service personnel in the Army have been wanting to see for so long.
Previous reviews turned out to be death by a thousand cuts. You cut here, you cut there, whether it was "Options for Change" or "Front Line First". Manpower and resources were cut and our defence commitments in the world were increased. No wonder some of the boys and girls in the services suffered such a decline in morale. They were doing continuous tours of duty. They were coming back from serving in one part of the world to go and serve in Northern Ireland. No sooner were they back than they were called back again. Let me not for one minute question the professionalism and service that they provide for this country.
Let me repeat something that I said last week; it happens to be true. We have the best army in the world, and we want to keep it like that. It may not be the biggest, but it is the best. For the past 18 months, I have represented this Parliament on the North Atlantic Assembly. That gives me the privilege of visiting other NATO countries and talking regularly to parliamentarians from those countries, including the United States and Canada. I hear nothing but praise for what our services do throughout the world—for example in Bosnia, where British soldiers are leading the way. One minute they have their sleeves rolled up and are working with the local community and the next, they are manning tanks at the other end of the town or village to defend people living in that area. They provide an example to the other forces who have gone there. I hear nothing but praise for the Army and I think that it should receive nothing but praise from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I understand the concerns about the bad publicity that some of our service personnel get. There have been damaging episodes, but let us not get it out of context. Let us not lose sight of the fact that our service personnel's conduct and behaviour is far better than the average conduct of young people in the community. Service men and women set an example to young people in the community. That is why I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government—[Interruption.] Heckle me if you like. This is the problem, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about the British Army, and the Whips sit there heckling and trying to make fun of the services. It is disgraceful, but it is typical. Opposition Members claim to represent the interests of the British forces, but every member of the forces currently or previously serving knows damn well that he or she is always better off under a Labour Government. They are going to be better off under a Labour Government for the next 10 years.
414
We won the general election last year with a terrific mandate. Much of that mandate came from our armed forces, who had had enough of the Conservative Government. Little did we realise what damage the previous Government had done.
Mr. Blunt: I should like the hon. Gentleman to name the terms under which he thinks that the armed forces are better off under a Labour Government than they were under a Conservative Government. He should name his terms, and then we will examine them.
Mr. Smith: All of them. There is a better way: let us consider the legacy that we were left with. The Conservative Government cut the defence budget by almost half in real terms as a proportion of GDP during their period of office. The Conservatives cut the number of service personnel from almost 750,000 to 400,000. They made the biggest cuts ever seen in the defence capacity of this country. I would agree that all that would have been part of the peace dividend if they had reduced expenditure rationally and strategically, but they did not, and the result was overstretch, as several Opposition Members have admitted. The Labour Government inherited that overstretch, which was putting unfair pressure on personnel in the Army and the other services.
The previous Government's cuts meant that there was an absence of heavy lift capability—the ability to get our troops to the front line and support them once there. Medical services in the British forces were an absolute disgrace—almost non-existent. That was another unacceptable situation that we inherited. I could continue the list, but I do not wish to do so, because I believe that the strategic defence review has completely reversed the position.
I was delighted by the announcement last week that British service personnel will shortly wear uniforms in the community. I believe that that will make a far greater contribution to our recruitment efforts than we realise. Believe it or not, the last time I saw British service personnel in full dress uniform when off duty was when I was carrying out my responsibilities in connection with the North Atlantic Assembly in Moscow. As we walked through Red square, we saw three members of the Black Watch in full military dress—off-duty soldiers who were there as tourists. As they walked across the square, Russians flocked to look at the spectacle of some of the finest soldiers in the world—British soldiers. They were instantly recognised for what they were—Scots and soldiers. They won great praise, much to the consternation of the Red guards guarding Lenin's tomb, who were not at all happy.
Joking aside, when we see our fine young men and women, walking once again in uniform through the streets, it will give the finest example of what our forces do. That will encourage far more youngsters to recognise what the armed forces offer in terms of a career and future. I am sure that they will take advantage of those opportunities.
We have heard much about the Territorial Army—in fact, most of the speeches, with one or two fine exceptions, have been completely dominated by that subject. That is understandable: there are constituency interests throughout the country and Members of Parliament are bound to be concerned about their local

415
TA unit. However, if that is all the Opposition can question in the strategic defence review, we have little to be concerned about. How can Opposition Members question that the SDR was necessary? The nature of warfare has changed completely.
Mr. Paterson: As a Welsh Member of Parliament, is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about the rumours that the Royal Welsh Fusiliers will be almost eliminated as a TA unit in north Wales and that north Wales will be denuded of an Army presence?
Mr. Smith: The honest answer is, yes, I would be concerned, if such a decision undermined the new part the Territorial Army is to play in our strategic military role. Because of our fine military and regimental traditions, we in Wales have one of the highest recruitment rates to the Regular Army in the United Kingdom. An important military consideration within the terms of the SDR was the need to reorientate the role of the TA, and I know that such factors will be considered in the consultations that are taking place.
I believe that the thinking is that the two battalions—the two great cap badges—will be kept in Wales, north and south, although, as a result of the restructuring, they may be cut back in terms of company numbers within those battalions. When restructuring, quite rightly, takes place in line with the strategic defence review, I believe that the viability of the two regiments will remain to ensure that, in line with Government thinking, we maintain the same high levels of recruitment in Wales that are of such benefit to the Regular Army. I am confident that, within the terms of reference of the SDR, the Government will take into account those serious arguments and not the spurious arguments advanced today.
Under the review, the Army has to be restructured to provide it with a relevant role for the future, and not the partially irrelevant role it has played for the past 10 years, preparing for a war on the eastern plains of Germany—the wrong place, now that the boundaries of Europe have changed—that will not happen in the foreseeable future. The Army must be able to play a leading role in the world by being able to react quickly and to project power rapidly to trouble spots in support of international initiatives.
Mr. Key: In view of his particular expertise on the North Atlantic Assembly, will the hon. Gentleman give us the benefit of his views on the role of the Army in relation to Western European Union?
Mr. Smith: I should be delighted to, but I want to focus on only one or two specific issues relating to the Army, and there is insufficient time to digress.
Mr. Hancock: Before the hon. Gentleman moves away from the subject of the TA in Wales, I am sure that he will get the support of every hon. Member if his premonition—which appears to be well informed—about the end result in Wales is fulfilled. In that case, I am sure that he will be the first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) on his campaign to preserve the TA in Wales. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will give heartfelt support to my hon. Friend's efforts to restore some credibility to the British Army in Wales, which will help the Labour Government.
Mr. Smith: Wales has done well from the strategic defence review in general. I have no idea what the final
416
outcome will be for the territorials, but I am confident that, within the terms of the review, we shall retain our battalions in Wales as viable entities.
Finally, I turn to a further benefit to Wales that may emerge from the review. Several hon. Members referred to the withdrawal of forces from Germany and the shortage of training locations in the United Kingdom. I tell Ministers that training facilities are available in the Principality, where forces relocating to the United Kingdom would be more than welcome. We are able to house military personnel and provide facilities for some of their activities.
The British Army and our other forces have a fine tradition. I am a former aircraftman and served alongside regular soldiers, and I have seen just how great they are. I confidently predict that, in the next 10 years, they will be even greater and an asset of which the United Kingdom can be proud. I should like to think that, on both sides of the House, hon. Members will be able to unite in ensuring that the strategic defence review is implemented fully, so that our forces may prosper in the future.
8.38 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: The persistent theme in today's debate, and in last week's debate on the strategic defence review, has very much been the future of the Territorial Army. One of my concerns about the TA's future has been the somewhat secretive nature of the consultation exercise on it.
In last week's debate, the Secretary of State said that he was prepared to listen to hon. Members' concerns. However, officially, hon. Members should not be aware of the contents of the document on TA restructuring, which has not yet been placed in the public domain. In the excellent document prepared by the Library on the strategic defence review, Library staff seemed to show some concern about the document's existence. Although people seemed to know its contents, the document itself could not be mentioned. We therefore have to rely on the summation of the document that was printed a couple of weeks ago in The Sunday Telegraph.
I should like to deal with the specific case, in my own constituency, of the possible demise of the 4th battalion, Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, which is very much a part of the TA infantry. First, however, I should deal with the general problem of the review's handling of the TA infantry, and consider four possible consequences that the review and proposed measures may have on the TA infantry—on recruiting, reinforcement, regeneration and community links between the TA and local communities.
There is in the Army a natural balance between the Regular Army, the Territorial Army and the Army cadet forces. The proposals, particularly those affecting the infantry, will disturb that balance. I do not think that sufficient weight has been given, in either the SDR or the TA review, to the TA's role in Regular Army recruitment. Although that role is certainly a non-operational one, it is one that has been very much undervalued. If there is a reduced or no TA presence in large parts of the United Kingdom, the TA's recruitment role will be greatly diminished. The TA infantry personnel ceiling of 6,500 is woefully inadequate if the TA is to play any significant role in recruitment.
The reduced personnel ceiling will have a severe impact also on the support that is given to the Army cadet force, which is itself a traditional source of Army recruits.

417
More practically, the reduction will have a severe long-term impact on the number of instructors in the Army cadet force.
Hon. Members have already mentioned in this debate the TA soldiers who serve gallantly in Bosnia backing up the Regular Army. To reduce the TA is to reduce the pool of willing volunteers who are able to fill the shortfall in deployment of regulars. Further overstretching of regulars inevitably will have a negative impact on Regular Army training and morale if TA soldiers, especially TA infantrymen, are not available to reinforce them.
Traditionally, in times of conflict, the TA infantry has been the regenerative force. If the TA is reduced, that essential role also will be reduced. In a conflict, if we had speedily to increase the size of the Regular Army, the TA would be much less able to provide the base essential to do that if it were reduced or eliminated in parts of the United Kingdom.
I must also deal with community links which are an essential part of the TA. The TA is a key element in the relationship between the civil and military populations. Cutting the TA and reducing that experience of contact with the Army will have a fairly devastating effect, not only on the TA itself, but on the Army cadet force which performs the essential role of instilling the qualities of service, discipline and loyalty into many of our young people.
That leads me neatly to the 4th battalion, Devonshire and Dorset Regiment in my constituency. It is very much part of the local scene, but also of the Army establishment. Within the two counties of Devon and Dorset, we currently have five companies of the TA in Exeter, Plymouth, Paignton, Dorchester and Poole. We have affiliated combined cadet forces at 12 schools—two in Lyme Regis, one in Tiverton where both my sons served in the combined cadet force, one in Wimborne and Iwerne Minster in my constituency, two in Exeter, and one in Dorchester, Plympton, Bruton, Plymouth and Sherborne. That represents quite a spread across the two counties. We have six companies of the Army cadet force spread across 58 detachments. In my constituency, A and C companies are represented at Blandford, Gillingham, Shaftesbury and Wimborne.
The strategic defence review is coy about the future of the combined cadet force and the Army cadet force. However, if we consider the SDR and what we believe to be in the TA restructuring document. it is clear what is going to happen to the five companies of TA soldiers in the Devons and Dorsets—there will be not five companies but two. In my county, there will be just one and, to add insult to injury—if The Sunday Telegraph article is correct—it will no longer be a company of the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment anyway. It will be renamed and reformed as something called the South West Battalion.
I imagine that, in the view of some civil servant, such a name will fit neatly alongside the Government office for the south-west, the south-west regional development agency, the south-west regional chamber and the great move towards regionalism. However, these proposals destroy the Devon and Dorset family, or at least a very important part of the historic links between the soldiers and their community.
418
The combined strength of the volunteers in the 4th battalion and in the cadets is some 2,200 soldiers. They are all proud to wear the cap badge of their county regiment, and are proud of the regimental band which is very much part of the TA, but which nevertheless serves the whole regiment. Why is it that in new Britain under new Labour, it is not very hip to be in the TA, not very cool to be a cadet or, especially if we are to believe the proposals, not terribly cool to be part of a county regiment? That is poppycock. It is another example of the Government's insensitivity to what happens in vast swathes of rural Britain.
The strength of the TA is its local associations. In the debate on the SDR, the Minister talked of greater integration between the TA and the Regular Army. If I take my own county TA regiment as an example, the proposals will break the link between the TA and the regulars. At the moment, the 4th battalion, the TA, operates alongside, and under the same command structure as, the 1st battalion, the regulars. That will be wholly destroyed. We shall destroy the conduit which is not only part of our community and county structure, but part of the British Army.
When he opened today's debate, the Minister said that the proposals were based on the principle that the TA was to be integrated and relevant. Having considered the proposals for the county that I represent in part, they are pretty disintegrated and will make the TA pretty irrelevant. That is because there will be so little of the TA in the county to be seen.
I make a plea to the Minister on behalf of the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment and of all county regiments with TA links. We should keep these TA units with their county regiments. I believe that the ceiling of 6,500 men for the TA infantry is inadequate, and that it will lead to manning problems in the regular Army. If anything comes of this debate and last week's, I hope that Ministers will reconsider the overall numbers of TA infantry and their links with local communities, particularly local communities in rural Britain.
8.50 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I had not intended to speak in the debate, having had a good run last week. I did not want to replicate my speech of last week. However, I thought it was important to participate this evening because I would not want to give the Whips the opportunity to say, "Let's abandon this single-service-debate concept because the debate petered out before the time when it was supposed to end." It is important that we sustain sufficient debates on defence because defence remains a vital subject.
Defence debates are rather like London Transport buses in that we wait a long time for them to come and finally, when they do arrive, they arrive en masse. I understand that there may be a debate next week on the Royal Navy, which will prove the point.
I had an invitation to join a number of people in the Guildhall this evening to celebrate the arrival of President Menem. However, there was the Army debate and I was organising a function in the Jubilee Room with the Royal British Legion. That meant that the world was spared the sight of me in a white tie and tails. Tailors were denied the £100 fee that I would have paid to participate in that unique occasion.

419
The debate is important. I have been rather embarrassed by some of the speeches of Opposition Members. I recall making one of my early speeches on defence a long time ago in the mid-1970s, when I was not treated with discourtesy. I was not treated by Members on the Benches opposite mocking or sneering because, never having served in the armed forces, I was daring to participate in a debate where some Members thought, because they had served as majors in the catering corps, they had a depth of knowledge sufficient to pontificate like some latter-day Clausewitz on affairs of state.
I do not buy the argument that only those who have served in the armed forces or whose great, great, great-grandfathers served, have a monopoly of wisdom, concern or, dare I say, knowledge of defence issues. I welcome the contributions of Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). I hope that he will participate regularly in these debates, despite the disgraceful way in which his speech was treated by some Opposition Members, with a pomposity that I found deeply repugnant.
The view seemed to be expressed that on day 1, 2 May, the armed forces suddenly declined and that hitherto they had been wisely led and funded by a group of people who made impeccable, perfect decisions. It seemed to be thought that, the moment the Labour Government came into office, pacifist, unilateralist thickos ruled the roost and brilliant men, like the drivers of black taxi cabs who regularly pontificate on all affairs of state, were denied the opportunity of making key decisions.
I looked at some of the reports produced by the Defence Committee in the last year of the Conservative Government to remind myself of those latter-day Clausewitzes and Churchills who had been responsible for our armed forces. Reports from the Session 1996–97 included one on the sale of the married quarters estate—not one that I would be particularly proud of if I was a Tory. Our third report was on defence medical services, about which they should feel distinctly embarrassed, if not humiliated.
I quoted from the report on defence spending last week. I offer no apologies for repeating our insistence that the defence spending plans set out in the 1996 Budget should at least be maintained in real terms in future years, because any further reduction would jeopardise the defence of the realm.
Our sixth report was on the latest developments on Gulf war illness—which, under the previous Government, were virtually nil. Then there was heavy lift. What heavy lift? There was prevarication on the future large aircraft. Is the Royal Air Force going to fly a concept? The Defence Committee must accept some responsibility, but the previous Government decided to go for the C130J, on which there was two years' delay. What about sea lift? If we wanted sea lift, we had to go to the open market and get the Ukrainians or the Poles to provide it. What happened to the merchant marine under the brilliant Conservative Government from 1979? It almost disappeared.
Some Conservatives argue that we should feel slightly ashamed because of the period in the 1980s when the Labour party was infected by a disease that it contracts every 30 years or so. We were cured and now the Government are sensible. I recall—although not from personal experience—periods about which Conservative
420
Members should have some humility. I remember reading about the British Army in the 1930s—denied equipment and led by officers who were not very well qualified, with a general staff as inept as they were during the period when, one Conservative Member has asserted, they were donkeys. In a vote of confidence in 1940, instigated by the Labour party and the Liberal party, Conservative Members either sat on their hands or voted for the Government of Neville Chamberlain. The Winston Churchill Government was established with the support of the Labour party, the Liberals and a handful of Conservatives who had had the courage to vote against their party leadership. When I am lectured about periods of humiliation for the Labour party, I ponder the periods in the past 50, 70 or 90 years of which neither party can be particularly proud. Some humility is appropriate on both sides.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to periods in which both parties behaved disgracefully, including the 1930s, when the Conservatives allowed themselves to be intimidated by a pacifist movement. The Labour party at the time was calling for even more disarmament than the Conservatives. The difference is that, when we got to the 1980s, the Conservatives had learnt the lesson of the 1930s, whereas the Labour party had to undergo the terrible defeats of 1983 and 1987 before abandoning unilateralism. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we have had to refer to the 1980s tonight only when challenges were unwisely directed against the Conservatives by Labour Members saying that they had nothing to be ashamed of?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Interventions must not be speeches.
Mr. George: I would not have objected if the intervention had been sensible. I defer to the ability of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) to penetrate the Labour party. Perhaps he should penetrate some history books and read about the Labour party. Ernie Bevin played a major role in destroying George Lansbury at the 1935 Labour conference. A. J. P. Taylor said that the subsequent Fulham by-election frightened the Tories out of what little sense they had. Labour Members in opposition and members of the trade union movement, who had seen their friends and comrades in Europe gaoled or murdered by the Nazis, saw the light much earlier than the Government of appeasement. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I should have a little seminar so that we can discuss who the guilty men were and distribute that guilt fairly evenly among political parties.
Dr. Lewis rose—
Mr. George: I shall not give way again. I make the point because it is necessary to get over to Conservative Members that there is no history of perfection in their party.
When I came into Parliament, everyone recalled that Denis Healey in the 1960s was the best Secretary of State for Defence since the second world war. One recalls the previous Labour Government leaving office having spent an average of 4.9 per cent. of gross domestic product on defence. Yes, spending rose a little under the Tories after the iron lady came into office, but that peak was largely

421
due to funding the ships that were sunk in the Falklands war. Not long afterwards, the Conservative Government abandoned the commitment of the previous Labour Government to increase defence expenditure by 3 per cent. in real terms, in line with a NATO decision. Yes, defence spending declined following the end of the cold war, although I should point out to Conservative Members that it began to decline in 1985—four years before the cold war ended. I would willingly engage in a history seminar with anyone who wishes to take part.
I have enormous affection for the British Army despite never having served in it. The only time that I threatened to vote Conservative—a long, long time ago—was when they abolished conscription. That decision led to the gradual fading away of militarily experience among Members of Parliament. It is important to sustain an interest in the armed forces in the House so that, even though very few of us have served in them, we are still able to comprehend the defence interests of the country.
I have an immense admiration for British soldiers. I recall that, when I went to Bosnia with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) we saw British forces of quite amazing professionalism. The Defence Committee said that the King's Royal Hussars had an immense versatility. They drove Challenger 1 tanks, which were then in operation, and Warrior vehicles. They were engaged in peacekeeping and inspecting ammunition sites held by various "Entity Forces", operated in a public order environment and were involved in many community-based projects, many of which we saw. Those are British professional soldiers, who are now, thankfully, well led and reasonably well equipped—unlike those during many previous periods and decades.
To go back even further, I shall cite a man who is not quoted particularly frequently by any hon. Member, but who admired the armed forces even more. I should like to indulge in citing one short verse of poetry. I see a Conservative Member starting to snigger. Hon. Members will know the author, whose words I endorse. He said:

"There'll surely come a day

When they give you all your pay

And treat you like a Christian ought to do.

But 'til that day comes round

Heaven keep you safe and sound

And Thomas here's my great respect to you."

That is Rudyard Kipling's "Ode to Thomas Atkins".
Those people deserve better than they have got from politicians over the past 200 years—an era in which they were led by men who purchased their commissions. Ability to lead was ignored; ability to pay was supreme. In the 18th century, a War Minister had previously been drummed out of the Army for cowardice. Regiments were frequently raised in times of war, but when the war was over, they were disbanded within days.
The Army was led by men such as the Duke of Cambridge, a relative of Queen Victoria and a man of stupefying conservatism who vehemently and successfully opposed almost every reform proposed by politicians in the House and elsewhere. I hope that we are now in an era when all that is well and truly over.
I remind hon. Members that, during the cold war, the British Army of the Rhine was, as one respected academic who gave evidence to the Defence Select Committee said,
422
a "shop window" force. When we saw British efforts in the Gulf, noble though they were, and when we saw how difficult it was to run even Challenger 1 tanks on the sand, we realised what might have happened if the Army of the Rhine had been confronted by the massed armies of the Warsaw pact.
We must learn the lessons of the past. One lesson that we must learn and relearn is the critical importance of our relationship with the United States, and of our key membership of NATO. European defence institutions can supplement NATO, but they must never replace it. I hope that despite what, if I interpret it correctly, I read in The Sun—great newspaper though it is—I may reappraise what the Government are supposed to be saying. I hope that we never forget that lesson.
The strategic defence review was helpful. NBC—nuclear, biological and chemical—in-theatre defence is improving. It is important that we learn the lessons of Granby, and that we in the House support the continuation and refining of the concepts of readiness and deployability, and a joint rapid deployment force. It is right to support the establishment of a second logistical chain.
It is also important to have our own in-house sea lift capability. I hope that more will be done to enhance what is left of the British merchant marine, and that a decision will soon be made on the heavy-lift aircraft. Will it be a C17 or its equivalent? That would be a great addition to our heavy-lift capability. I hope that a decision will soon be made whether to stay with the plan for the future large aircraft, which is looking increasingly like the kind of mirage that one sees when walking in the desert, or to go in for something that the Royal Air Force can deploy reasonably quickly.
One of my hon. Friends was a little sceptical about British forces in Germany. I do not expect the Red army to come through the Fulder gap, but if we believe in the concept of rapid deployment, I should prefer substantial forces to be located in Germany rather than on this side of the channel.
I hope that the Minister will use every opportunity to improve our defence medical services. A great deal has been promised and, over the next few years, it will be time for that to be delivered. I also hope that the Government, and certainly the Defence Select Committee, will watch the new training cycle.
Over the years, the Defence Committee has inquired into a number of major procurement failures. I hope that smart procurement will at least diminish the likelihood of defence projects going hopelessly over budget, being hopelessly delayed or, when they are finally delivered to the Army, the Air Force or the Navy, failing to achieve the objectives that they were designed to achieve. One of the areas we shall look at is Bowman.
The Select Committee will explore what progress is being made on Gulf war syndrome. We are collectively anxious about what will happen in terms of the future of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I am pleased to say that we will hold a public hearing on 2 December on a subject on which the Select Committee is unanimous, as is most of the House of Commons—we will take evidence from the Minister for the Armed Forces on the "consultation" that has been, or will be, undertaken on the Territorial Army. Whatever the Government say, the issue will not go away.

423
I hope that the Government have the good sense, belatedly, to do what the previous Government did under immense pressure—that is, to cancel a number of proposed mergers. It was difficult for Malcolm Rifkind to turn Government policy on its head, but I believe that it was done for the best of motives. I hope that there will be some add-back to our armed forces, and soon.
In conclusion, let me say that we have so much of which we can be proud about our Army and our armed forces. We have heard of cases of bad behaviour, drunkenness and brutality, but they involve only a tiny percentage of those who serve in our armed forces. These are young men and women—and some who are not so young—who work for a pay scale that most people would run away from. They work hours that any trade unionist would instantly organise a campaign against. In some parts of the world, they live in accommodation that pigs would be reticent about. Those people and their spouses—who face enormous strain—suffer, in some cases, public ridicule and indifference.
I do not wish to quote Kipling again but
"when the guns begin to shoot",
they are the "despised people" who fight. It is not us—we are safe and secure in our homes, protected by our armed forces. It is those men and women who go out and run the risk of death. We owe them an enormous debt, and we should hold them in immense admiration. It is incumbent upon us to provide properly for our armed forces, to give them proper training and equipment and to ensure that they are well led, and wisely led, at all levels.
Historically, we have been derelict in our duties. I hope that the strategic defence review will achieve what we all want to see, regardless of political affiliation—armed forces which we can afford and which, every now and again, abandon their peacekeeping operations and those activities that are not particularly violent so that we can test how wise we have been in equipping them. If we have been wise, they will perform their duties well and will be successful.
There have been times in our history when we have believed that there was no requirement for well-funded armed forces. When the crisis comes, men go off to fight wars in faraway places and suffer death from war and illness. Who is ultimately responsible for their plight? It is Governments and Parliaments. I hope that we shall serve our country and our armed forces to such a degree that, when they are called upon to put their lives to the test, we can say that we did what was necessary.
9.13 pm
Mr. Bob Russell: Although we obviously ignore history at our peril, I wish to concentrate on the present and the immediate future. I must draw the Minister's attention to the fact that I represent one of the premier division garrison towns and, in addition to the soldiers, I represent their wives and families. There are approximately 3,500 troops and 5,500 wives and dependants in Colchester.
I want the Minister to organise a survey and a complete audit of married quarters. The previous Government, in one of the most wicked privatisations, disposed of Army housing stock in the build-up to the last general election. The Government and the Ministry of Defence have a responsibility. We have been discussing recruitment and retention: a high standard of accommodation for the
424
families of those in the services, as well for single men in barracks, is of critical importance. I want an assurance that the Minister will arrange for a survey and audit of the state of married quarters.
Reference has been made to the future of the Territorial Army, and I certainly endorse all the sentimental reasons given for retaining a strong civilian-military link. I would argue the case for the TA, but it has to evolve to have a meaningful role for the 21st century. All that enthusiasm and voluntary effort can be put to good use, but it must evolve.
Recruitment could be encouraged through the Army cadets. It is all very well for the Government to say that they support the cadet movement, but its budget has been cut and is insufficient. If more money were put into the cadets, more young men and women would be encouraged to join and might well go into the armed forces. Although we have heard that recruitment is up on the figure that the Government inherited from the previous Government, I think that the Minister will confirm that the complement of the British Army is still more than 3,000 below what it should be. We must increase recruitment as well as retention, and giving the cadet movement a boost is one way to do so. The Government would thereby be following the spirit of the Home Secretary's attempts—in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—to encourage young people to lead more meaningful lives and the efforts of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to encourage people to lead fruitful lives. More investment in the cadet forces would contribute to those goals.
I wish to draw attention to 24 Airmobile Brigade. The rumours are flying around. Perhaps the Minister can confirm or deny them. It is reported that the airborne elements of 5 Airborne Brigade, including two Parachute Regiment battalions, will be grouped with 24 Airmobile Brigade to form 16 Air Assault Brigade. By 2005, the new brigade will include three Army Air Corps regiments. However, we are not being told where the new brigade will be located.
I suggest that there have been behind-the-scenes manoeuvres to ensure that the Parachute Regiment stays in Aldershot. If so, how will the new brigade operate if 24 Airmobile Brigade, as we now know it, is to remain in Colchester? It would be helpful if the Minister said that the 16 Air Assault Brigade would indeed be based in Colchester; at a stroke, that would remove the many rumours and provide stability for all the members of the forces who are to form the new brigade. I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber and hope that he, too, can assure the House that the 16 Air Assault Brigade will be based at Colchester.
9.20 pm
Mr. Owen Paterson: The Army is undermanned by 5,000 people and turnover is high—15,000 people a year—yet we are planning to cut the number of people in the Territorial Army, the Regular Army's main source of recruitment. In 1990, the TA consisted of 85,300 people. The current figure is 56,000, yet a dramatic drop to 40,000 is proposed.
That ignores history over the past centuries and more recently—the TA infantry fought alongside regular regiments in the Falklands and 10 per cent. of the forces in Bosnia consisted of the TA. It also ignores the experience of our closest allies. In the USA, two thirds of

425
artillery units will, by the end of 1999, be from the reserves. The highest-scoring tank unit in the Gulf war was the 4th US Marine Reserve Tank Battalion.
The aim is to save money. The Reserves currently cost £360 million and the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association costs £80 million, which is 2 per cent. of the defence budget. The aim is to save £69 million, or 0.3 per cent. of the defence budget.
I give two examples of why I do not think the measure will save any money. One of the highly skilled TA units that is to be abolished is 198 Field Park Squadron, the Royal Engineers Territorial Army—80 per cent. of its members are ex-Regular Army or independent TA. The turnover is very low—only 5 per cent.—and the unit is tightly knit. I give only one example of its skills. A two-mile relief road was needed at the Cultybraggan training camp in Scotland. The challenge was funked by regular engineer units, but 198 took the job on, designing and planning the road in eight weeks flat. The unit estimates that it has saved the Ministry of Defence £500,000 over the past three years by taking on jobs that otherwise would have gone to civilian contractors.
My other example is the Royal Yeomanry, which is the Army's only nuclear, biological and chemical reconnaissance regiment—the Regular Army contains no counterpart. If the Minister reads paragraph 102 of the strategic defence review, he will see that the Royal Yeomanry is to be replaced by a Regular Army unit. That is daft—450 TA soldiers at £45 a day, together with the permanent staff, cost the taxpayer about £1.9 million, whereas Regular Army soldiers at £15,500 a year would cost an additional £7 million. That would not mean any quality gain, as the unit has recently passed the American chemical defence establishment assessment with flying colours.
The Secretary of State—I am delighted that he has joined our deliberations—frequently uses the word "relevant", but what about the poisoning on the Tokyo underground? The people in the Royal Yeomanry are excellent and should be retained—that would save money.
I see no savings, but I see long-term damage to the Army. Some 40 per cent. of Regular Army recruits come from the TA and the Army Cadet Force. The 1,700 ACF detachments across the country depend on the local TA unit for support. In a sparsely populated rural county such as Shropshire, one cannot close the training units and expect young people to travel. They simply cannot. No matter how hard one tries to create an integrated transport system, it is not possible in my constituency, which has 98 villages.
In a metropolitan area a training hall can be closed and young people can get public transport, but in a rural area that is not possible. The result will be the removal of military presence in a county such as Shropshire. The rumoured move to cut Shropshire down to one company of TA, based in Shrewsbury, will be disastrous. The TA will be spread far too thin and will simply not be able to cover the large geographical distances. Once the presence is gone, the footprint demanded by the Select Committee will be lost for good.
The move to lose the cap badge will be catastrophic. There is a rumour that the new regiment will be called the Midlands Regiment. Who on earth will be loyal to the
426
Midlands Regiment? People are loyal to 5 Light Infantry, which has been there for hundreds of years, or to the Staffords. The regiments work like a family, and we have a record of success.
There is a real local role for the regiments: 18 to 22 per cent. of the LI are from the unemployed. A highly valued training framework is provided, giving civilians a role and a real purpose in life. I cannot express it better than my constituent, Major Hutchinson, who is chairman of the Ellesmere ACF detachment. He wrote to me in May, with some prescience, and said:
"It is my belief that ACFs, and very possibly CCFs, will be unable to continue their splendid youth work if the TA is cut back by anything like the scale suggested in the 'leaks' to the press. The Ellesmere ACF is the only organisation in the town, outside of schools, which offers opportunities for our young people to develop all of their non-academic talents to the full."
Furthermore, the TA has a real civil defence role. Unexpected events catch one behind the ear like a wet sandbag. That is a relevant phrase tonight, because as we have been talking the Rivers Severn and Vyrnwy have been rising. The brooks have backed up and in places they have breached. Two villages in my constituency, Melverley and Pentre, may be evacuated this evening. Shrewsbury may be inundated tomorrow.
This morning, I talked to Shropshire's county emergency planning officer, who was in the throes of debating whether to call in the military and put them on alert to help with the evacuation this evening. He said that it
"gave him great comfort as a member of the local authority to know that the TA is available at short notice, but that the option might not be available in a year's time."
According to a Ministry of Defence statement on 25 September, a tri-service equal opportunities training centre will be set up at Shrivenham to
"equip around 1,000 service and civilian equal opportunities advisers with the practical knowledge and skills needed to effectively advise and train their colleagues."
In a phrase that I do not understand, it said that
"the centre would encourage a 'top down bottom up' approach to equal opportunities awareness.
Bluntly, I do not believe that there is prejudice in the Army or the TA. London's TA regiments have a higher proportion of non-whites than exists in the general population. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) most eloquently stated that the Royal Green Jackets have more than 20 per cent. non-whites.
This is political correctness gone mad. When resources are scarce, every pound should be spent training and equipping our armed forces so that they are in such a state of readiness as to deter an aggressor. In the event that war breaks out, as it did in the Gulf, all the Army's efforts should be concentrated on preparing to rain down on our enemies every possible devastation, to bring conflict to a halt as quickly as possible.
As a glaring example, today we have welcomed the democratically elected president of Argentina. He would not have come here but for the bravery of our men in the Falklands. They went up Mount Tumbledown in the teeth of enemy bullets, not because they had been on an equal opportunities course but because they had been trained to go through the horrors of armed conflict: something that many of us, luckily, have never been through—I hope that

427
we will never have to. Training, skill and equipment win wars, not equal opportunities awareness. Shrivenham is an expensive disgrace. It is politically correct gesture politics. It is a self-indulgent distraction. Our armed forces are being put at risk while savage, far reaching and ill-thought-out cuts are made to our reserve forces.
9.29 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson: Once again, the debate on the Army has been wide ranging. We have been able to squeeze in some 15 speeches from Back Benchers, of whom, it will not surprise you to learn, Mr. Deputy Speaker, 11 have spoken out about the TA, and the majority have made the case for the Government to reconsider their proposals as outlined in the strategic defence review and in the pages of our press.
I welcome the commitment from the Minister for the Armed Forces to continue the three single-service debates. I think that we might profitably discuss how to focus those debates in future.
Eighty years ago today, British armies in France numbered 1.7 million men and women. On 28 October 1918, they were back almost to the positions on the Franco-Belgian border where the original British expeditionary force of 120,000 men—almost overwhelmingly regulars and regular reservists, although there were a few members of the TA—were deployed in August 1914. It is mind boggling because that is the largest group of armies that the British empire has ever deployed. We will never see their like again.
Eighty years ago tonight, the 2nd battalion, Manchester Regiment was preparing plans to cross a section of the Oise-Sambre canal. In the subsequent attempt, on 4 November, Lieutenant Wilfred Owen was killed. His parents received the news on the morning of 11 November as the church bells rang to celebrate the armistice. That is a world away from us today, but resonant with images, memories and traditions for today's generation and for the modern British Army.
A number of hon. Members have been at the reception given this evening by the British Legion. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and other hon. Members about the British Legion's work and the work done by SSAFA—the Soldiers' Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association. I have the honour of being one of the parliamentary members of SSAFA' s council.
All hon. Members who have spoken have emphasised the professionalism of the modern British Army, its very high reputation, and the stress and strain placed on today's families owing to overstretch and frequency of postings overseas—yet that is not new. What is perhaps new is the fact that service men and their families are no longer prepared just to accept it. Because they are volunteer armed forces, they will ultimately talk with their feet; so what Governments have to do is to make certain that, as far as possible, their time in the Army is made as fair as possible, and they have some idea of when their postings will take place. Alternatively, we have to restrict what we want to do with our armed forces.
It is not an either/or. This Government and previous Governments have attempted to square the circle. Yes, from 1989, Conservative Governments did cut our armed forces and I never heard a word from any of the then Opposition parties that we should maintain our armed
428
forces at their former strength. I observed members of the then Opposition parties from the Box as a special adviser. And I did not hear them say that we should maintain our armed forces at that level.
Several hon. Members have referred to the British Army's contribution to the Gulf war. We were able to make that contribution because the British Army of the Rhine, the RAF Germany and the Royal Navy had a large enough critical mass. We should face the fact that the critical mass of our Army today imposes major limitations on what it can do. The positions outlined by the strategic defence review, of a one-shot deployment of a large division or of trying to maintain two brigades overseas at the same time, will be extremely difficult to sustain over any lengthy period without having to call up reserves or thinking about using large numbers of Territorial Army soldiers. I am sure that Ministers are only too well aware of that fact.
Our task is to hold the Government to account for the wide range of UK defence policy—financial resources, weapons, equipment, welfare and support facilities. Members of Parliament should also hold the Army to account for how it carries out its professional duties and manages itself as one of the great public services. I entirely endorse what the Chairman of the Select Committee said about not having had to serve in the armed forces in order to take a view on them. I did not agree with all that was said by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), but he made a thoughtful contribution. However, the recent service in the Army of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) helped him to make a forceful and powerful contribution to the debate.
We must consider the Army in the wide context of the strategic defence review. The SDR must in turn be considered against a real cut in the defence budget. Ministers are aware of the enormous resource constraints. The debate about the Territorial Army is not just about making it modern and usable. Like other hon. Members, I have always argued that the TA cannot be set in aspic. It is too expensive to be a museum piece, and the men and women who serve in it would not want it to be one. We know from evidence to the Select Committee and from those involved in the Regular Army and the Territorial Army that cuts in the TA are funding the expeditionary role of the Regular Army, particularly its logistic chain.
That poses a major problem for the Minister of State. We are in a consultation period during which difficult decisions will have to be made. Either he will make hardly any movement, in which case there will be broken crockery when he speaks in the House, much of it broken by his own side, or he will make a major add-back which, unless extra financial resources are provided, will mean that money will have to come from the Regular Army. I suspect that that money will have to come from the logistic chain.
If we are to have an expeditionary force capability and to take part in real power projection during the next 10 years; and if, in the words of Admiral Fisher, we are to see the Navy firing the Army once again ashore as a giant shell, the crucial element will be the logistic chain. A month ago, I was fortunate enough to observe regular and territorial soldiers in one of the largest logistics exercises that the United Kingdom has ever held. I commend all the men and women involved, particularly

429
the commander of the support group, Brigadier Tim Cross. Logistics is not a boring area, because the logistic element precedes all others. Logistics operatives pass the fighting troops forward, and when the fighting troops are withdrawn, they are the last to leave. That is a major problem for Ministers to solve. I am afraid that, on the evidence so far of the financial constraints, and on what we have seen from the strategic defence review, the figures do not add up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury mentioned something that we have referred to time and again over the past 18 months in the debate on the SDR. Our military policy is suffering from a vacuum, if not a contradiction, in our foreign and security policy. Once again, why will Ministers not publish the foreign policy baseline?
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Boring.
Mr. Simpson: They say that it is boring—but then why do they not publish it? It is the fundamental premise upon which the SDR is supposed to be based.
Several hon. Members mentioned the Government's disarray on European security policy over the past week. In the old Army expression, it is greatcoats on, greatcoats off; we do not know. That was reflected in some contributions from Labour Members.
There has also been disarray on foreign policy which may affect our arms exports. The disarray over our relations with Chile sends, to say the least, a strange signal to friends and allies, many of whom purchase arms from us for their self-defence and in respect of which there is a £5 billion balance in our favour that supports some 300,000 men and women in defence industry. The Government need to get their foreign and security policy well and truly thought out.
I support hon. Members on both sides of the House, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Reigate, who mentioned the importance of the qualitative nature of our Army. To use crude military jargon, the British Army is a force multiplier. That force multiplier consists in the quality of all ranks.
I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) that the backbone of the British Army has been its non-commissioned officers, who have been outstanding in peace and war. They have usually managed to get a grip of officers in a way that no senior officer could. However, I am concerned that there was a touch of old Labour class warfare in this. There were some crude interpretations of British history—upper-class twits and so on. There are resonances here from the first world war; General Melchett comes to mind. [Interruption.] If the Minister of State's laughter is a reflection of his impression of British generals today, he is sadly misled. One of our major force multipliers is the quality of our senior officers.
It is perhaps unfair to pick out two or three but I highlight high-quality senior British officers such as General Sir Jeremy Mackenzie, who is about to finish as our Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe. He has made a major impact on the way in which NATO has operated in Bosnia. I have to pick out General
430
Sir Rupert Smith, General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland, who is about to become Deputy SACEUR, the outstanding professional soldier of his generation and a man who has shown great physical courage. There is also General Sir Sam Cowans, who is, I think, the first member of the Royal Signals to reach the Army Board. He will be the first chief of defence logistics and will have to deliver the efficiency savings. He will find it challenging, to say the least.
I could run down the list from the generals to the brigadiers, colonels, captains and others. They are high-quality men; I hope that there will be more women. They are our force multipliers. I refer to women because I never served in the British Army—I married into it. No one has to preach to me about the role of women in the armed forces, or about what they can or cannot do.
The British Army has fine traditions. It is a real force multiplier. It is now down to what I think is a pretty low-level critical mass. The strategic defence review has configured the Army for an expeditionary force capability.
Financial cuts and the current downturn in the economy must call into question our ability to achieve the SDR's objectives. The Army is operating in a foreign and security policy vacuum. At present, the jury is out on the SDR: the jury being the men and women serving in the Regular Army and their families. On the TA, the jury is in and is delivering a massive vote of no confidence in the Government, who have not got their policy right in this crucial area. The Minister has a few weeks to address these problems.
As in so many areas of policy—education, health and welfare—the Government raised massive expectations, spinning widely and deeply, and now comes the pay off. There are no more excuses. In the next year, our service men and women will make a judgment about whether to stay or go. They are volunteers: they are not conscripts. We all want them to stay and carry out a worthwhile and vital job. It is a vital job because no other area of Government policy is as important as defence.
One of the Secretary of State's predecessors, Lord Healey, said that we cannot have hospitals and schools without defence. I fear that for the armed forces—to paraphrase Labour's election song—things may only get worse.
9.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I pay tribute to hon. Members for their informed contributions to the debate. They were ample testimony to the value and importance that hon. Members attach to the Army and to those who serve in it, particularly for their professionalism, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). However, the hon. Gentleman did not trust the judgment of the chiefs of staff on these matters, because he seemed to think that he had a better view than they did. He also seemed willing to spend far more money than I suspect the shadow Chancellor would consider prudent. We await some reconciliation of those views by the time we get to the debate on the Navy.
I shall have some difficulty covering all the points that were raised, so I shall write to colleagues. However, I must mention the Army equipment programme. The thorough scrutiny that was carried out during the SDR

431
strongly confirmed the overall direction of the Army equipment programme, in particular its emphasis on increased deployability, improved reconnaissance, surveillance, communication, information systems and longer range and precision for artillery. In turn, those capabilities are closely linked to the key SDR theme of exploiting new technology, especially information technology.
Following the SDR, the equipment programme will ensure that the Army continues to be well equipped to conduct the full range of operations identified in the review, from peacekeeping to high-intensity warfighting.
Two major initiatives within the SDR will help to improve the operational effectiveness and value for money of the Army equipment programme in the years to come. The smart procurement initiative will enable us to bring equipment into operational service with the armed forces more quickly, at lower cost, and with better performance. The creation of a fully integrated defence logistics organisation under a chief of defence logistics—rightly identified by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk as General Sam Cowan—will achieve better, more effective support for the services. Most importantly, these two initiatives—along with others in the SDR—will improve the military effectiveness of the armed forces when deployed on operations. In parallel with the SDR, we have taken a number of key decisions on major equipment projects, while other projects have achieved significant milestones over recent months.
The SDR confirmed the continuing requirement for a main battle tank as a fundamental capability to enable the Army to conduct both modern conventional warfare and peace support operations in spite of some of the press reports to the contrary during the process of the SDR. We are, therefore, procuring 386 Challenger 2 tanks, to equip six strong armoured regiments of 58 tanks each for operations. I am equally pleased to say that Challenger 2 successfully met its in-service date on 30 June, with deliveries of tanks to the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards completed ahead of schedule.
The hon. Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) both raised queries about the tank transporter. I am advised that the transporter currently in service, the Scammell Commander, is capable of taking Challenger 2.
The SDR also confirmed the importance of the Apache attack helicopter as a key battle-winning equipment. The project is on course to meet its in-service date of December 2000, and the first flight equipped with Rolls-Royce 322 engines took place in the United States in September. The attack helicopter has been selected as one of the pilot projects for smart procurement. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) would not expect me to give a definitive decision tonight on that, but we shall make that announcement as soon as possible.
We have made important decisions on two key reconnaissance and target acquisition capabilities. In March, jointly with France and Germany, we placed a contract for production of the COBRA counter-battery radar system, which will allow hostile artillery to be accurately detected, located and attacked at long ranges. COBRA will provide a vital capability both for war fighting and for peacekeeping operations such as Bosnia. In July, we announced our decision to undertake a programme of work to enhance the Army's tactical
432
reconnaissance capability. This will include studies into unmanned air vehicles, as well as participation with the United States in the TRACER—as it is properly known—programme to provide a highly mobile, stealthy manned battlefield reconnaissance capability.
In that context, I must say that I was surprised not so much at the fact that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) did not know the title of the programme, as at her dismissive comments of the programme as toys for boys. That was rather reminiscent of the comments from the Scottish nationalist hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) about equipment programmes as the result of a mid-life crisis. We expect such comments from the Scottish nationalists, but we are slightly surprised to get them from the Conservative party. No doubt, the Front-Bench colleagues of the hon. Lady for Beckenham will have a word with her about that sort of attitude.
We expect to make further major decisions on critical new reconnaissance and communications capabilities during the coming year. ASTOR—the airborne stand-off radar—will be a joint Army-RAF long-range theatre surveillance and target acquisition system, required to operate in all weather, by day and night. BOWMAN will provide a secure communication system, for both voice and data, for all elements of the three armed services engaged in the tactical land battle. BOWMAN will also provide an essential part of our joint battlespace digitisation initiative, to maximise the operational benefits of improved communication and information systems.
We are also taking action to improve the Army's indirect fire and air defence capabilities. Building on the success of the MLRS rocket system, which played an important part in the Gulf War, in July we entered a programme with the United States, France, Germany and Italy to develop a new guided rocket, with improved range, accuracy and effectiveness. In August, we announced our decision to join the United States in a programme for development of the Marconi marine land and naval systems ultra lightweight field howitzer. Our participation in this programme will provide information to inform future decisions on artillery weapons systems. In addition, we have recently approved, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of contractual negotiations, an order for additional launchers and missiles for the high velocity missile close air defence system.
In April we announced our intention, subject to satisfactory conclusion of contractual negotiations, to proceed with development and initial production of MRAV, the multi-role armoured vehicle, to replace some of the Army's aging in-service armoured utility vehicles. That is a joint venture with France and Germany, and we hope to sign a contract soon, together with Germany and France, for that product.
In September, we placed a contract for the area weapons effects simulator, which will complete the Army's tactical simulation strategy.
In summary, key decisions have been taken and significant progress made on a number of major national and collaborative projects involving either European or US allies, or both. Those equipments are part of a coherent programme that will reinforce capabilities whose importance was confirmed in the SDR and ensure that we have an Army that is equipped, trained and ready to carry out the tasks that the SDR identified.

433
I turn now to points raised during the debate. If there is time, I shall return to the subject of the Territorial Army. The restructuring of Land Command and its impact on York was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) and the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). We emphasise that the purpose of the Land Command restructuring is to make the Army more effective and efficient, so that it can meet the challenges of the 21st century. That is in the forefront of our minds as my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces makes his final deliberations on the future district structure of the Army. I can assure hon. Members that we hope to be able to make the relevant announcements shortly.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: In his consideration of those important issues, will the Minister take account of the political requirement to ensure that, at a time of constitutional change in the United Kingdom, the Army in Scotland remains commanded in Scotland?
Mr. Spellar: I am absolutely certain that my hon. Friend will take account of a broad range of factors during his deliberations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and the hon. Member for Colchester mentioned accommodation and its importance to recruitment and retention. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces made clear when he opened the debate the Government's commitment to the people who serve in the armed forces. Part of that commitment relates to their living accommodation.
The liaison team that we established during the strategic defence review to talk directly to service and civilian staff found the low standard of some of our single living accommodation for service personnel to be a significant cause of complaint. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has also criticised the Department on that issue in the past. As a result, we are taking action to address the single living accommodation problem, and plans are now in place to raise the standard of single living accommodation across all three services over the next few years. That ties in with the reforms I announced earlier this month about relations with the construction industry.
My hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South mentioned Gulf war and nuclear test veterans. On several occasions, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces has answered
434
questions and demonstrated the Government's continuing commitment to addressing the concerns of Gulf veterans openly, sympathetically and seriously. We have had several debates on the subject of nuclear test veterans. I urge hon. Members who raise the issue to look at the scientific evidence produced by the highly respected National Radiological Protection Board.
The issue of ethnic minorities and their service in the armed forces was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) and for Loughborough, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South. My hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green will remember the introductory course we both attended at a south Birmingham college.
I have to say—particularly to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who used the words "touchy-feely", and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who referred to political correctness—that there are two key drivers behind our policy in respect of ethnic minorities and equal opportunities in the armed forces. First, we want to ensure that our armed forces have the pick of the best youngsters across the board, without regard to irrelevant considerations. Only then can we achieve proper operational effectiveness. Secondly, the policy is not about political correctness or some transatlantic fad, but about the good, old-fashioned British virtues of decency and fair play. That is what we have done and what we shall continue to do. We regret that Conservative Members seem to feel that there is some political advantage in trying to carp on the matter. However, such carping demeans them far more than it undermines the process that we are undertaking.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough mentioned fitness in the services. We are in discussions with the Minister for Sport on that important matter. We have also devised new fitness and training regimes, to ensure that people get up to the right fitness level and are able to participate fully in the services.
This has been a timely debate. The Army has embarked on a process of change, making it a modern force that is capable of meeting our future defence needs more effectively. We have outlined how we are to achieving that goal with both equipment and people. Our policy is good for both the Army and the country, and we are proud of our part in it."
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

  Social Services (Worcestershire)
  10 pm
  Mr. David Lock: I wish to present a petition signed by 1,500 of my constituents who are concerned about the preservation of vital services provided to them by the social services department of Worcestershire county council, including the services provided to the many people in my constituency with learning difficulties.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons.
  This is a petition from the Wyre Forest Committee Against Cuts.
  We do not think the amount of local government money settled upon for the Worcestershire County Council is a fair amount. It directly affects the quality of services we use.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to re-examine provision for social services in Worcestershire.
  And the petitioners remain etc.
  The petition was organised by Mr. Chester O'Neil, of Kidderminster, whom I met earlier today in his wheelchair. I am sure that the House will wish to take very seriously his concerns and those of all users of those vital services.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Leasehold Valuation Tribunals
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Leasehold valuation tribunals, or LVTs, were originally introduced to provide a quick, affordable and effective means of resolving disputes between landlords and leaseholders. Introduced first to hear valuation disputes in cases of leasehold enfranchisement, their remit was extended in 1986 to hear cases involving service charges and management. A knowledgable panel to hear the case, and no power to award costs but a fixed fee of up to £500, gave leaseholders the hope that justice would come swiftly and cheaply, without the need to go through the courts, with all the attendant costs and delays.
  Sadly, that hope has since turned very sour. Joan South—one dedicated and determined campaigner—recently said:
  "The Leasehold Enfranchisement Association toiled for years in an attempt to make the LVTs a success. I personally attended virtually every single tribunal hearing for the first three years after the 1993 Act had become law and helped dozens of tenants prepare their cases."
  She goes on:
  "We … no longer believe that what is happening is capable of delivering justice."
  Those who know Joan South, as I know my hon. Friend the Minister does, know very well that she is not a woman who gives up lightly. Why, then, has she given up on the LVT system?
  It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. In just such a way, justice is being denied to literally hundreds of leaseholders. In London alone, for the 12 months from 1 September 1997 to 31 August 1998, there were 331 applications for service charge LVTs. As at 23 September 1998, the total number of cases heard was only 29. The number of decisions handed down was 11. Yesterday, I was told by an applicant that he had been advised that his case would not be heard until 2000, as there was an 18-month backlog. The LVT is not quick, but is it affordable? Mr. Rimba does not think so.
  In a service charge case in which the LVT found that the landlords had overcharged approximately £3,000, Mr. Rimba ended up paying £5,000 towards the landlords' costs. Even though the landlords had previously been found guilty in the courts for not supplying section 20 details to support the service charge accounts, and, indeed, were fined for that failure, and even though that failure had rendered it impossible for Mr. Rimba to ascertain the exact instances of overcharging in the service charge accounts, the LVT, chaired by Mrs. Goulden JP, determined that, because it had
  "found in favour of the Applicant in respect of certain matters of contention between the parties, the Applicant was entitled to expect the service charge account to be limited to reflect this".
  The LVTs were introduced with no powers to award costs; they can set only a fixed fee of up to £500.
  The decision that I have just cited caused disbelief and bewilderment among professionals and leaseholders alike.

  437
  Peter Haler, the chief executive of LEASE, a leasehold advisory service, said:
  "What we don't understand at all is why the Tribunal allowed the £5,000 at all. Normally a 20C order will delete recharges completely."
  Allowing the costs to be added to the service charge not only sets a dangerous precedent, but means that many leaseholders who might have sought redress from an LVT will have been discouraged from doing so because it is too expensive. It is not worth while for a leaseholder to fight a landlord who rips him off to the tune of £1,000 if it is going to cost him £2,000 to get justice.
  Earlier this month, at a tribunal at which a tenant represented himself and 177 of his fellow leaseholders, he found ranged against him an eminent Queen's counsel, an assistant barrister and a solicitor. Such representation at an LVT, which is supposed to be a quick, efficient and cheap way of getting justice, is an abuse of its raison d'etre. It is often the wealthy landowner who can afford to employ the legal battalions; the leaseholder more often cannot.
  The LVT is not affordable, but is it effective? During a previous late-night encounter on this topic in the House last December, for which my hon. Friend the Minister and I can claim anorak status, my hon. Friend informed me:
  "a leasehold valuation tribunal is not an arbitral tribunal. That means that its decisions must be confirmed by a court before they can be enforced."—[Official Report, 19 December 1997; Vol. 303, c.636.]
  Indeed, Lady Wilson, one of the chairs of the panels, has complained of the pre-trial reviews in the Maples Bury road case in August this year:
  "We do not have the teeth to enforce adherence to the prescribed timetable."
  The pre-trial review should be one of the most important and helpful parts of the whole process. It is supposed to enable one of the panel to establish the outlines of the dispute and to bring about disclosure of the relevant documentation by a particular date before the hearing. In fact, it is now rare for both parties even to attend. Frequently, critical papers are not provided, yet the tribunal has no sanction that it can apply.
  The frustration that can result can be illustrated well by reporting what happened in the Rubypoint case. A notice was sent to the managers at Rubypoint that an application to appoint a new manager had been lodged with an LVT. That notice was ignored. A further notice informing Rubypoint of the pre-trial review date was also ignored. Mr. Hyam, Rubypoint's director, failed to attend. The notice for the tribunal was similarly ignored. The hearing was delayed, waiting for Mr. Hyam, who eventually turned up half an hour late, with none of the relevant papers.
  The LVT was held in contempt, and it could not do a thing about it. The decision was one of the most astounding that have yet been heard in all LVTs. It was one in which a Miss Stella Evans was heard in the South South-Eastern LVT. She had applied to the LVT for a change of manager because her current manager, Mr. Hyam of Rubypoint, had been gaoled for four years for forgery and fraud for matters relating to the management, or should I say mismanagement, of Miss Evans's block. Miss Evans went to the LVT to ask for residents to be appointed as managers of their own block instead of Mr. Hyam's company, Rubypoint.
  438
  There was amazement at the decision. The chairman, a lawyer, Mr. Robert Long, ruled that the residents could manage, but would have to enter into a contract with Rubypoint to do so. In arriving at that verdict, the chairman clearly demonstrated that he had no idea of the difference between a manager and a managing agent. He had demanded that the tenants had to contract with Rubypoint, which had defrauded them as its agent, if they were to be allowed to manage their own block. Of course, he could not compel Rubypoint to contract with the manager, because it would be only the agent. In such a case, the judgment was entirely unenforceable.
  Commenting on the decision, the Leasehold Advisory Service said:
  "when a tribunal appoints a new manager, the landlord's management powers are removed and a contract with him therefore is inappropriate."
  Other leading commentators were less diplomatic. The barrister, Mr. Michael Daiches, wrote in a letter to Peter Hayler, the chief executive of the Leasehold Advisory Service:
  "the LVT appears to have gone completely haywire."
  The LVT system, as it stands, came in with the hopes of literally thousands of oppressed leaseholders bearing down upon it. It came in with the expectation that it would be quick, affordable and effective. It is none of those things. It is not quick, it is not affordable and it is not effective as it stands. I urge the Government to do all they can to ensure that this deficiency is remedied as swiftly as possible, so that justice can be brought back to the people for whom it was originally intended.
  10.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on securing the opportunity to raise important issues relating to the work of leasehold valuation tribunals. He has been assiduous in raising concerns about leasehold problems and campaigning for reform. I should reassure the House at the outset that the Government want to see thorough and effective reform, and we are determined to achieve that objective. I know that some have said that we are not moving as fast as some leaseholders would like, but the legacy of the past few attempts at leasehold reform provides, as my hon. Friend is only too well aware, a salutary reminder of the consequences of misguided and ill-considered legislation, particularly when that legislation is introduced in a hurry. It is more important to get the legislation right for the long term. We intend to publish a consultation paper on radical proposals for reforming the structure of leasehold in the near future.
  I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised several concerns about the operation of leasehold valuation tribunals, although he did not help his case by presenting an entirely negative view of their work. His examples require careful consideration and possibly changes to the current structures, but there are many other examples in which leasehold valuation tribunals have played an important role in assisting leaseholders who otherwise would have been unable to secure justice.
  Only a few months ago, my hon. Friend was pressing the Government to ensure changes to the law that would make possible the transfer of more cases from the courts

  439
  to leasehold valuation tribunals, to give people easier access to swifter and cheaper justice. Therefore, while there are grounds for concern, the picture is not as bleak as my hon. Friend has painted it this evening.
  Leasehold valuation tribunals were set up to provide a mechanism for resolving disputes between leaseholders and landlords. Initially, their main function was to resolve disputes over the price to be paid for acquiring the freehold of leasehold houses. Following the enactment of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, their role was extended to cover disputes over the price payable for collective enfranchisement of flats and for new leases.
  The Housing Act 1996 gave tribunals a wider role from 1 September 1997. Leaseholders or landlords can apply to a tribunal for a determination of the reasonableness of charges for services, repairs, maintenance, insurance or management. That can include costs that have already been incurred and amounts payable before costs are incurred. Leaseholders who are having severe problems with the management of their building can apply to a tribunal for the appointment of a new manager. The changes were made to ensure that some of the defects in earlier legislation, such as the procedures under the 1987 legislation for the appointment of a manager, which had not proved successful, were replaced with more accessible systems.
  The tribunals are independent of the Government, and are impartial. They normally consist of three members, including at least one lawyer and one surveyor or valuer. Hearings are semi-formal, and evidence is not given on oath. They are intended to provide a simpler alternative to court proceedings. Applicants do not have to be represented by a solicitor or barrister, although either party can be so represented if they wish. Most importantly, the tribunals do not have the power to award costs, so leaseholders do not face the risk of a large bill if they lose.
  I shall try to address the specific points raised by my hon. Friend in turn. He started by describing the time taken to process leasehold valuation tribunal applications. We are well aware of the concerns about the time taken for cases to be determined, but that is unavoidable to an extent, given the need to ensure that both parties have an adequate opportunity to prepare their case. There is also the simple fact that, following the 1996 Act, leasehold valuation tribunals have received a substantial number of additional cases, increasing their work load.
  It is too soon to draw firm conclusions about the ability of the system to cope with the additional work load that has been created as a result of the 1986 Act. We expect the time taken by tribunals to deal with cases to reduce over time. We are not in any way complacent about that; unacceptably long delays are involved in the handling of cases. The London panel is looking to streamline the procedures in the light of experience, and so speed up the process.
  We are also looking to recruit more expert and lay members to tribunals in anticipation of an increasing number of applications from leaseholders. To give my hon. Friend an idea of that, I can tell him that 37 new panel members have been appointed in the past 12 months—10 of them in London. The Government are concerned that members of the panel should be more representative of all sections of the community, so we
  440
  have placed particular emphasis on encouraging the recruitment of women and members of ethnic minorities. Of the 37 new recruits, 11 are women and four are from ethnic minorities.
  A further possible 40 candidates for panel membership are under consideration by the panels. Advertisements have also been placed for both lawyer chairmen and valuers. Advertisements for valuers recently appeared, and we expect interviews to be held at the end of November or early in December. We also expect appointments of new lawyer chairmen to be completed by the end of November. All those measures should help to tackle the problems that my hon. Friend has described, although, as I have stressed, we are not complacent. We are monitoring the situation closely, and planning a wider review of the rent assessment panel structure, of which tribunals are part.
  As my hon. Friend will appreciate, panels have two separate roles. One is in respect of rent assessment by rent officers. Panels act as review panels—appeal bodies—against rent officer decisions. Work load in that area has declined as the number of regulated tenants who are subject to a rent officer determination of fair rent has been reducing. There are complex issues to ensure that we have sufficient people to cope with the tribunals' different responsibilities. The matter will be kept under close review.
  My hon. Friend referred to several cases. I cannot comment on individual cases, but I shall briefly refer to issues arising from two of the cases that he has highlighted. The first is of Rimba v. Tennyson and Stavrou. Leasehold valuation tribunals have a discretion to make an order on such terms as they consider just and equitable, restricting the right of a landlord to recover legal costs incurred through appearance at a leasehold valuation tribunal hearing, where the terms of the lease allow the landlord to do so. There is no automatic right to an order precluding any cost recovery by that means, but we shall be looking at the issue as part of our broader monitoring of the leasehold valuation tribunal regime.
  My hon. Friend mentioned costs. I am not convinced that leasehold valuation tribunals are not affordable. The purpose of setting a fee was to make it possible for leaseholders to apply, but to discourage frivolous applications from, for example, people who are simply seeking to delay payments of reasonable sums. The maximum fee is £500. It is often possible for leaseholders in the same block to share the costs of a single application, thereby substantially reducing their own liability.
  I accept that the level of fees may discourage some applications. We have been particularly concerned about anti-competitive insurance arrangements, where the level of fee required to take the matter to a leasehold valuation tribunal may be disproportionate to the leaseholder's potential saving. We intend to address that issue in our forthcoming consultation paper on leasehold issues.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the difficulties that some lay applicants who are unrepresented may encounter when confronted with landlords represented by several lawyers, possibly including Queen's counsel. One of the objectives of the leasehold valuation tribunal regime is that proceedings should be reasonably informal, so that leaseholders can appear in person without the expense of professional representation.

  441
  We certainly expect the leasehold valuation tribunals to treat people fairly and impartially, and not to allow their judgment to be influenced in any way by the presence of legal representatives on the other side. As I have said, one reason why the transfer of cases from the courts to the leasehold valuation tribunals was favoured was to allow for more informal hearings, with less risk of leaseholders being intimidated by deep-pocketed landlords who can afford expensive legal representation. We certainly want leasehold valuation tribunals to ensure real fairness between the parties in that respect.
  My hon. Friend referred to the case involving Stella Evans and Rubypoint. Again, I cannot comment on an individual case, especially as I understand that, in that case, an application for a variation of the tribunal's order has been made. However, we are aware of the broader concerns about the way in which some tribunals are handling applications for the appointment of a manager, and I can assure my hon. Friend, and the House, that we want tribunals to establish workable arrangements in what can be a confrontational situation. The issue is not straightforward, and we intend to address it in our forthcoming consultation paper.
  442
  I hope that what I have said has assured my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members here that the Government take seriously the question of equity in the relations between landlords and leaseholders. We have an ambitious programme of reform, which we shall outline in the consultation paper; in the meantime, we shall examine closely the way in which leasehold valuation tribunals discharge their responsibilities.
  I entirely accept that there are some difficulties associated with the novelty of the experience for leasehold valuation tribunals taking on work in areas in which they have no previous experience, and with the volume of cases being brought to their attention.
  Difficulties may occur as a result, but we are determined that the leasehold valuation tribunal system will develop so as to be able to respond sympathetically and successfully to the new challenges that it faces, and to ensure that leaseholders and landlords get swift and effective justice at a reasonable price. We shall do all we can to ensure that the tribunal system meets its intended objectives.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Abduction
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the improvements he wishes to see in the operation of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and if he will make a statement. [56680]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government are generally satisfied with the legal principles underlying the operation of the Convention, which provides for the return of children who have been wrongfully removed from, or wrongfully retained away from, their country of habitual residence. There is always scope for improvement through better coordination and cooperation among contracting states. Discussions on specific problems take place regularly with other contracting states through judicial and administrative channels. Proposals put forward at the Third Meeting of the Special Commission of the Hague Conference are set out in their report published in August 1997.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place in the Library all information available to him about(a) the deliberations of the Special Commission to review the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction which took place in March 1997 and (b) the Special Commission's conclusions. [56686]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference published a report on the March 1997 Third Special Commission on the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention in August 1997. Copies will be placed in the Library as soon as possible. A bibliography on this Convention is available on the Internet at web site http://www.hcch.net.

  Court Service Charter
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if, for each of the last five years, he will give the number of complaints made under the Court Service Charter, the percentage of complaints upheld and the average and total amount of compensation paid to complainants. [56020]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Court Service became an executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department in April 1995. This information, specific to the Court Service, cannot be provided prior to this date. In addition, for the first year (April 1995-March 1996) there was no central system in place to measure the information required. This could therefore be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  160
  For the financial year April 1996-March 1997, there were 1,100 justified claims for compensation and the total amount paid out was £404,095.11, an average of £367 per claim. For the financial year April 1997-March 1998 there were 1,033 justified claims for compensation. The total amount paid out during that period was £610,328.52, an average of £590 per claim. It should be noted that one payment alone in this period totalled more than £110,806.35.

  Information on the total number of complaints made under the Court Service Charter is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Visual Amenity (Planning Regulations)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to review the planning regulations in respect of visual amenity and the impact of(a) mobile telephone aerials, (b) windmills and (c) electricity pylons. [56345]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None. I am satisfied that the existing framework of regulation and guidance is adequate.

  Overseas Visits (Advisers)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [55999]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: The Ministerial Code requires Ministers always to make efficient and cost effective travel arrangements. In line with the practice of successive Administrations, civil servants (including Special Advisers) accompanying Ministers on overseas visits are entitled to use the same class of travel as the Minister they are accompanying to facilitate briefings and discussions. Ministers in this Department were accompanied by a Special Adviser on 4 overseas visits to Hong Kong and China, Portugal, Japan and Singapore, and Vienna. They were also accompanied by a total of 10 civil servants at a total cost of to date £67,431. Some invoices are still awaited for the Japan and Vienna trips.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what have been the annual running costs for each year since their establishment of each of the regional committees or bodies for the disbursement of European structural funds; and by what means such costs are scrutinised. [56251]

  Mr. Meale
  In England the Government Office for the Regions provide the Chair and secretariat to the Programme Monitoring Committees (PMCs) responsible for the disbursement of funds for Objective 1, 2 and
  161
  5b programmes and most Community Initiatives, under the European Structural Funds. The current programmes have been running since 1994 and are worth approximately £400 million/year. The table shows the total outturn costs for Government Offices of managing those funds for which they are responsible, on an annual basis since 1995–96. Figures for 1994–95 are not available in this format. This table includes the costs of managing the regional allocations of DfEE national programmes, but not those administered by MAFF. It also

  Go-Minis 2, 3 and 4

  £000

  1995–96—outturn

  1996–97—outturn

  1997–98—outturn

  1998–99—allocation

  Pay and service costs

  European funding

  ESF

  Other European

  ESF

  Other European

  ESF

  Other European

  Total

  GO-NE

  457.00

  73.55

  399.60

  36.00

  470.00

  119.72

  516.30

  2,072.17

  GO-NW

  505.00

  92.05

  422.15

  106.10

  416.06

  188.82

  421.19

  2,151.37

  GO-M

  357.00

  187.24

  364.54

  206.51

  408.43

  213.53

  480.96

  2,218.21

  GO-YH

  481.00

  64.26

  457.55

  64.26

  457.55

  92.18

  477.27

  2,094.07

  GO-WM

  402.00

  62.64

  439.57

  102.00

  464.01

  142.55

  494.42

  2,107.19

  GO-EM

  353.00

  61.11

  285.07

  45.26

  385.22

  80.00

  418.89

  1,628.55

  GO-ER

  207.00

  5.20

  273.00

  54.80

  213.80

  76.90

  208.66

  1,039.36

  GO-SE

  300.00

  51.72

  186.53

  34.71

  259.34

  159.85

  243.75

  1,235.90

  GO-SW

  325.00

  95.00

  474.00

  123.00

  465.00

  180.00

  465.00

  2,127.00

  GO-L

  288.00

  30.00

  294.15

  62.28

  275.83

  164.00

  305.00

  1,419.26

  Total

  3,675.00

  722.77

  3,596.16

  834.92

  3,815.24

  1,417.55

  4,031.44

  18,093.08

  Energy-efficient Lighting
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to encourage the use of energy-efficient lighting in accommodation occupied by his Department. [56193]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Property managers are asked to install energy efficient lighting, control systems and sensors to help meet DETR's target to cut energy use by 20 per cent. by March 2000 compared to March 1991. Lighting systems in new buildings use 50 per cent. less energy. Schemes are promoted to replace inefficient lighting systems in older buildings. For example, the Government Office for London has recently installed new lighting to cut energy use by 16 per cent. A new energy strategy is being drawn up to audit all buildings in DETR and to promote further measures to cut energy use. This will include more investment in energy efficient lighting systems.

  Nuclear Fuel Flasks
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the numbers of nuclear fuel flasks originating in(a) France, (b) Germany and (c) Switzerland, which have been allowed into the United Kingdom and have levels of loose contamination in excess of levels normally found on flasks of United Kingdom origin. [56352]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: During the period from September 1996 to date, no nuclear fuel shipments entering the United Kingdom from Germany and Switzerland revealed loose contamination in excess of the regulatory levels. However, one flask shipment from Germany and one from Switzerland showed loose contamination at Dunkirk,
  162
  does not include the cost of secondees from Programme partners to the Government Offices, or the expenses of the partnership representatives who form the membership of the PMCs.

  The running costs of Government Offices, including expenditure incurred in managing European programmes, are subject to monitoring from the Government Office Central Unit and the three parent Departments (DETR, DfEE and DTI). A programme of audits is also carried out by the Departments' internal auditors.

  whilst en-route to the United Kingdom. In both cases the contamination was removed to below the regulatory level before entering the UK and the flasks were found clean on arrival at Sellafield. France does not usually send spent fuel to the United Kingdom.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of recent tests in Germany on genetically modified maize in respect of cross-pollination with natural maize; and if he will make a statement. [56509]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: I have not seen the results of the German tests on maize. I will ask officials to investigate and will respond in due course.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentages of total carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom arise from(a) power generation, (b) industrial production and (c) transport.[56828]

  Mr. Meale
  Power generation, industrial production and transport accounted respectively for about 27 per cent., 26 per cent. and 21 per cent. of total UK emissions of carbon dioxide in 1996, the most recent year for which final data are available. Provisional data for 1997 indicate that the percentage shares for the same three categories were 26 per cent., 26 per cent. and 22 per cent. respectively.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the future capacity of electronic communication to reduce transport need.[56731]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Over 1 million people already use telecommunications to work from home for at least part of their working week, cutting the number of commuter journeys they make. Given the rate of technological progress, the number of people working in this way is expected to increase in the future.

  As the Integrated White Paper stated, this Government support the use of telecommunications to reduce travel and hope that companies will actively consider the possibilities in drawing up green transport plans. The environmental benefits will generally be greatest if teleworking is targeted at people who would otherwise do significant amounts of car travel. There will also be greater benefits if reduced commuter traffic is not replaced by more car journeys from the home, as could happen if improved telecommunications encourage people to shift from urban to rural areas, prompting less sustainable travel patterns overall.

  Ministerial Vehicles
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ist the engine capacity of each vehicle used on official duties by Ministers in his Department.[56546]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: My Department has Supply and Service Agreements with the Government Car and Despatch Agency for 9 vehicles for Ministers. Seven of the cars have engine capacities of 2 litres, the others being 4 litres and 2.7 litres respectively.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce a winter campaign to encourage cyclists to wear reflective strips on their clothing; and if he will make a statement. [56720]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department has this week made available new promotional material for young cyclists explaining the importance of being visible to traffic by using lights and reflectors and appropriate clothing—bright or fluorescent by day and reflective at night. As part of the promotion we have produced 750,000 leaflets incorporating reflective stickers. They are available free through local authority road safety officers. The Highway Code and Highway Code for Young Road Users also give advice on this issue to pedestrians and cyclists of all ages.

  Aviation Fuels
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages of introducing a global levy on aviation fuels for investment in sustainable development. [56514]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government support, in principle, the introduction of a tax on aviation fuel at an international level and will continue to pursue, within the 164
  International Civil Aviation Organisation, the potential for market based options such as a global levy on aviation fuel.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the current trend in UK emissions of greenhouse gases; and what estimate he has made of the level of such emissions in 2010 relative to those in 1990.[56513]

  Mr. Meale
  Total emissions of greenhouse gases from the UK have fallen from 215 million tonnes carbon equivalent in 1990 to 204 million tonnes carbon equivalent in 1996, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Assuming existing policies and measures, total greenhouse gas emissions are expected to fall by approximately 10 per cent. from 1990 to 2010. Earlier this week, my Department launched a consultation document on additional policy options for meeting its climate change targets.

  Kyoto Agreement
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the actions taken by the Government since the Kyoto agreement to ensure that the UK meets its emissions reductions targets; and what assessment he has made of the actions taken by the US Government to reduce their country's C02 emissions. [56512]

  Mr. Meale
  On 26 October the Government launched a consultation paper which lists the steps we have already taken and sets out in detail further options on how the UK could reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. It aims to stimulate a national debate about how the UK can meet both the legally binding Kyoto target to cut emissions to 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012 and our domestic goal of a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010.

  Our newclimate change programme will include measures to improve energy efficiency by business and in the home; reduce transport emissions; and increase the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources and combined heat and power schemes.

  Through our Washington Embassy and other contacts we receive regular reports of action taken and proposed, by the US Government to reduce their carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. A recent US Administration report ("The Kyoto Protocol and the President's Policies to Address Climate Change: Administration Economic Analysis", July 1998) assessing the economic implications of their Kyoto target concluded that there was a strong rationale for action because of the dangers of climate change, and that the costs of doing so were likely to be modest.

  Leylandii
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has reached a conclusion on the most appropriate method of enabling local planning authorities to control the impact of Leylandii and other fast growing conifers. [56417]
  165
  Mr. Meale
  We are continuing to consider carefully whether Government intervention in relation to problems caused by these plants is necessary. We will announce our conclusions in due course.

  We are separately, with the support of the horticultural industry, local government and consumer interests, drawing up a voluntary code of good practice on the sale, use and maintenance of such plants for domestic hedges. It will include guidance to garden centres, nurseries and other outlets on how to give purchasers practical information about their growth potential and the work needed to maintain them. The provision of better advice and information to consumers under this code should help to ensure that we do not store up more problems for the future.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions after what period of time he takes action to obtain essential information which he has judged to be missing from planning applications which he has called in for determination. [56438]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This will depend on the individual circumstances of each application. Action is normally taken as soon as it becomes apparent that the relevant information is required in support of an application.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to reach a decision on the planning application made by Michael Knighton and Carlisle AFC for a mixed leisure and recreational development, which was called in on 8 January 1997. [56439]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The application in question has been withdrawn and so is no longer before the Secretary of State for determination.

  British Waterways
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make a decision about the future status of British Waterways; what options he is considering; and if he will make a statement. [56566]

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to consult interested individuals and organisations regarding the future role and status of British Waterways; [56434]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding British Waterways becoming a trust; and if he will make a statement;[56433]

  (3) what plans he has for the future status of the British Waterways Board; and if he will make a statement. [56431]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government have been considering a range of possible options for the future of British Waterways (BW). These include the option, proposed by the British Waterways Board, of establishing a statutory, charitable trust in the private sector. Other options include retaining BW in the public sector while developing BW's access to private sector finance and expertise.
  166
  Following BW's publication of its trust proposal, I have received a number of representations on the subject from employee representatives, waterway organisations and members of the public. No decisions have yet been taken. Once we have reached a view on the preferred option, we will inform Parliament and discuss it with interested parties.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the Government's planned contribution to British Waterways in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000. [56432]

  Mr. Meale
  The amount of grant-in-aid to British Waterways over this period is as follows:

  Year

  £million

  1997–98

  51.890

  1998–99

  52.690

  1999–2000

  Not yet advised

  New Forest
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding the number of broadleaf trees currently being felled in the New Forest; and if he will publish his Department's correspondence with the Ministry of Agriculture regarding the revision of the Ministers Mandate.[56504]

  Mr. Meale
  The Forestry Commission is responsible for managing the Crown lands of the New Forest and it does so in accordance with the Minister's Mandate. As far as I am aware, there have been no discussions or correspondence between my Department and either the Forestry Commission or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the revision of the Mandate or the felling of broadleaf trees in the New Forest.

  Transport Co-ordination
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraph 3.68 of the Government's White Paper, A New Deal for Transport, when he proposes to issue general guidance on the application of prohibitions in proposed competition legislation to facilitate co-operation between operators in respect of connecting services, co-ordinating timetables and integrating networks; and if he will make a statement. [56688]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 27 October 1998]: The responsibility for issuing general guidance on the application of the prohibitions on anti-competitive agreements and the abuse of market power lies with the Director General of Fair Trading under Clause 52 of the Competition Bill, which will receive Royal Assent shortly.

  Rural Mobile Shops
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what grants from his Department are available for the providers of rural mobile shops; and if he will make a statement. [56556]
  167
  Mr. Meale
  The Department does not provide grants for rural mobile or permanent shops (although there may be scope for such funding within part of a wider regeneration scheme funded through the Single Regeneration Budget). The Government's agency, the Rural Development Commission, can provide grants for rural mobile shops, particularly where a fixed shop is not viable. However, the Commission's priority is to support fixed shops which, in general, provide a more complete service for the community.

  Rail Freight
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) with which parties his Department has been having discussions on a Euro-gauge freight rail system from the Channel Tunnel to Scotland; [56310]

  (2) what is his policy towards the proposed piggy-back rail-freight scheme; and if he will make a statement. [56312]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  For some months, Railtrack has been working on an application for grant assistance for a major rail freight upgrade. In drawing up its application the company has had lengthy discussions with my officials. We expect to receive a grant application shortly. It will be treated on its merits.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy towards the proposed central railway rail-freight scheme; and if he will make a statement. [56311]

  Dr. Reid
  Ministers have seen only the consultation documents which Central Railway has recently issued. The Government have therefore not taken a view on the scheme.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) by what year he estimates on present projections the Channel Tunnel's rail-freight carrying capacity will be fully utilised; [56313]

  (2) by what percentage he estimates the volume of rail-freight going through the Channel Tunnel would be increased if the Channel Tunnel's rail-freight capacity was fully utilised. [56314]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  English Welsh & Scottish Railway (EWS) acquired the Railfreight Distribution business from the BR Board in 1997 and now operates freight services through the Tunnel. EWS estimates that, given the current mix of Eurostar, Le Shuttle and freight trains, the share of Eurotunnel capacity allocated to the national railways for freight trans will be fully utilised in ten years. The company also estimates that at that point in time, volumes will have more than doubled.

  Area-based Initiatives
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements the Government are making to ensure effective co-ordination of its area-based initiatives. [57389]
  168
  Mr. Prescott
  The Government are committed to tackling social exclusion, reducing inequality and promoting regeneration and development. To help meet this commitment they have, in their first 18 months, launched specific area-based programmes and initiatives including Health Action Zones, the New Deal for Communities, Employment Zones and Education Action Zones.

  These area-based programmes have their own distinct goals. But they share key characteristics. They are targeted on areas and communities where there is a need for priority action; they aim to support new, cross-cutting approaches; they promote genuine local partnerships with stronger local involvement; and they encourage greater flexibility and responsiveness in the operation of public spending programmes.

  I am announcing today measures to ensure that area-based initiatives at neighbourhood, local, regional and national level are co-ordinated so that they serve local people as effectively as possible.

  The Cabinet Office and my Department have circulated a guidance note to all Departments. The guidance note
  outlines the strategy for co-ordination of initiatives;
  defines the common characteristics of many area-based initiatives; and
  sets out the arrangements for handling proposed new area based initiatives and extensions to existing ones.

  Copies of the guidance note have been placed in the Library of the House.

  My Department is commissioning research on the mapping of these initiatives and on options for streamlining their accountability and funding. These projects will help us gain a better understanding of the interactions between area-based initiatives.

  An interdepartmental support unit is being established in my Department to carry out day-to-day exchanges of information, advise on future initiatives and support their monitoring and evaluation.

  In six key locations, which represent a cross-section of types of area and where there is a range of initiatives, the Government will build on experience and support the development of models of best practice in managing and co-ordinating initiatives. They will explore what lessons can be learnt, both about the way in which individual initiatives are delivered, and about their relationship to main public spending programmes. The proposed areas are: Newcastle; Plymouth; South Yorkshire; East London (Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets); West Cumbria and Sandwell. The Government will be contacting key interests in those areas, including local communities to discuss how to take forward these studies and define the target areas more closely.

  The Government support the Local Government Association (LGA) New Commitment to Regeneration Initiative which is seeking a more co-ordinated and flexible approach to regeneration in 22 pathfinder areas through the preparation of comprehensive regeneration strategies for their areas. In these areas the implementation of area-based initiatives will take account of the emerging pathfinder strategies. The progress of the LGA New Commitment will be monitored at regular Central/Local Partnership meetings between the LGA and the Government.
  169
  The Government will continue to support the City Pride initiatives in Birmingham, London and Manchester through which local partnerships are pursuing a shared strategic vision of their areas.

  Government Offices for the Regions and, in due course and subject to legislation, Regional Development Agencies will play a key part at regional level in the co-ordination of area-based initiatives.

  In line with the Social Exclusion Unit report "Bringing Britain Together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal" an action team, led by my Department, will report by April 1999 on how to build on existing area-based initiatives and Local Government reform so that in the long term broad based strategies to prevent and tackle social exclusion become the norm, and good practice is disseminated and acted on. This will include development of more effective ways of disseminating information about the wider context within which regeneration programmes and initiatives operate.

  The Government will keep these arrangements under review and reflect the outcome of relevant research and studies in the future development and operation of their programmes and initiatives.

  Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in the light of the consultation paper, Draft Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) (England and Wales) Regulations 1998, implementing the requirements of the amended Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (97/11/EC); and if he will make a statement. [57391]

  Mr. Caborn
  The consultation paper on the draft Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 was issued on 21 July 1998. To date, 105 responses have been received from business, local government and environmental organisations, as well as members of the public. A list of the responses has been placed in the library of the House and copies of all the responses have been placed in the DETR library. The Government are considering these responses and the Regulations will come into force on 14 March 1999.

  Unauthorised Camping
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish good practice advice for local authorities and the police on managing unauthorised camping; and if he will make a statement. [57089]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This Department and the Home Office have worked together to produce joint good practice guidance for local authorities and the police on managing unauthorised camping, based on research carried out by the University of Birmingham. I will be launching the guidance, and the associated research report, on 29 October at a conference organised by the National Association of Gypsy and Traveller Officers in Coventry.

  Copies of the good practice guidance and the report will be placed in the libraries of both Houses.

SCOTLAND

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on genetically modified food. [56712]

  Mr. Galbraith
  In the last year, on this matter, The Scottish Office has dealt with 84 cases of Ministerial correspondence; in addition, a further 69 cases have been dealt with by officials.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Chelmsford Jobcentre
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of notified job vacancies at Chelmsford Jobcentre for each of the last 12 months for which figures are available. [56551]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 28 October 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question in which you asked for information about the numbers of notified job vacancies at Chelmsford Jobcentre for each of the last 12 months. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Leigh Lewis as Chief Executive of the Employment Service. I am replying in his absence.

  Vacancies notified to this Jobcentre were as follows:

  October 1997: 587

  November 1997: 782

  December 1997: 584

  January 1998: 248

  February 1998: 591

  March 1998: 549

  April 1998: 483

  May 1998: 505

  June 1998: 540

  July 1998: 871

  August 1998: 738

  September 1998: 791

  I hope this is helpful.

  Special Learning Needs
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what means he monitors the ability of providers of vocational and other courses for people with disabilities to cope with their special learning needs. [56962]

  Mr. Mudie
  All provision funded by the Further Education Funding Council is monitored by the Council's Inspectorate. Provision funded by Training and Enterprise Councils is similarly monitored by the Training Standards Council. Both organisations have regard to the arrangements made for people with special learning needs when carrying out their inspections. Their reports are published.

  EU Children's Comic
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total cost to public funds to date in connection with the EU children's comic entitled "The Raspberry Ice Cream War". [56764]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Publication of "The Raspberry Ice Cream War" is funded by the European Commission. No details of its costs are available.

PRIME MINISTER

  Community Hospitals
  Qll. Dr. Harris
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on community hospitals. [54801]

  The Prime Minister
  As I said in the House before the summer break, the Government recognise the important role that community hospitals can play in delivering locally based patient care. However, they must meet the same high-quality standards, and fairness and efficiency tests, as any other hospitals.

  Euro
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how much the Government have(a) spent and (b) propose to spend in relation to the euro by way of (i) direct mail shots, (ii) pamphlets and information circulars, (iii) advertising on radio and television and (iv) schools information. [56939]

  (2) what moneys have been (a) spent and (b) allocated by Her Majesty's Government towards circulating literature relating to the euro and to the preparation for the euro and to promoting awareness of the implications of the euro. [57006]

  The Prime Minister
  The single European currency will be introduced in 11 countries in Europe on 1 January 1999. The eurozone will form a market of nearly 300 million customers, and will account for about one-fifth of the world economy. It is by far the most important marketplace for UK business, accounting for around 50 per cent. of our total exports.

  The Government's communication campaign on the euro is aimed at ensuring UK businesses, especially small and medium firms, are aware of the implications of the introduction of the single currency from 1 January 1999 and have the information they need to prepare.

  To meet this objective, the Treasury Euro Preparations Unit received Summer Supplementary Estimate provision of £7.5 million for 1998–99. Spend to date has been approximately £0.5 million for direct mailing to 1.6 million UK SMEs, £0.5 million for the printing of factsheets and flyers, and £3.8 million for the costs of radio and television advertising. These figures do not include VAT or postage.

  Additionally, the Euro Preparations Unit (EPU) has advertised in the national and regional press, organised regional seminars and training programmes, and produced a number of publications. No information packs have yet been produced specifically for schools. We will look to do so in the future when it is appropriate.
  172
  Decisions on any further spending will be based on an assessment of the effectiveness of the current campaign.

  Tibet
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he raised the Chinese occupation of Tibet with his hosts during his recent visit to China. [56550]

  The Prime Minister
  In my meetings with Chinese leaders, I raised the issue of Tibet and urged China to enter into talks with the Dalai Lama without pre-conditions in order to seek a lasting solution.

  Cuba
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the members of the Government who have met members of the Government of Cuba since 2 May 1997, separately identifying those who have met President Fidel Castro. [57030]

  The Prime Minister
  The following members of the Government have met with members of the Government of Cuba since 2 May 1997:

  The Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

  Tony Lloyd MP

  George Foulkes MP

  George Howarth MP

  Jeff Rooker MP

  President Fidel Castro was one of the Heads of Government I met briefly in the margins of the commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the GATT in Geneva in May.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Welfare Reform
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a summary of responses to the Green Paper on Welfare Reform. [56021]

  Mr. Darling
  Consultation on the Welfare Reform Green Paper ended on 31 July, and over 1,050 responses have been received. Half of the responses came from organisations—including both national bodies and local groups, and academic bodies. Most of the remaining responses came from individuals. Seventy hon. Members also submitted responses, many from their constituents.

  This has been a useful consultation on the principles that should underpin the Government's plans for welfare reform. The Green Paper set out a clear philosophy for the welfare state. "Work for those who can, security for those who cannot" is the foundation of our programme. It has received overwhelming support. The public's response demonstrates first a widespread recognition of the need for welfare reform, and secondly, endorsement of our approach.

  Today I announced the publication of three documents, "Principles into Practice", "The Gateway to Work" and "Support for Disabled People", which mark the next stage of reform, containing detailed proposals for turning those principles into practice.
  173
  A list of the organisations and academic bodies who responded has been placed in the Library. Due to their number and size it has not been possible to accommodate responses in the library. However, copies of the list and specific responses are available on request from the Department of Social Security, by contacting the Welfare Reform Unit, 5th Floor, The Adelphi, 1–11 John Adam St., London WC2N 6HT.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his definition of loss in the context of his policy that welfare reform will not lead to losses for existing recipients; and what steps he has taken to ensure that no reform to date hSas lead to such a loss; [56676]

  (2) if his policy of ensuring that no current recipients of social security benefits lose as a result of the Government's welfare reform programme takes into account real terms losses from non-indexation of benefits. [56515]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: We are today announcing reforms for people of working age. Details of how they will affect existing recipients of Social Security benefits are in the documents "Principles into Practice", "The Gateway to Work" and "Support for Disabled People" being published today. We are also announcing today details of the review of benefit rates.

  Income Support
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the capital limits for income support. [56023]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans to change these limits at present. However, we continue to review the benefit rules as part of our commitment to modernise the Social Security system.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people currently claim(a) short-term and (b) long-term incapacity benefit; [55934]

  (2) what proportion of incapacity benefit claimants currently receive the long-term rate; [55938]

  (3) what proportion of current claimants of incapacity benefit are aged (a) 25 to 35, (b) 35 to 45, (c) 45 to 55 and (d) 55 to 65 years. [55940]

  Mr. Timms
  At 31 May 1998, there were 1,644,640 Incapacity Benefit recipients. Of these, 102,400 received short-term lower rate, 99,180 short-term higher rate and 1,443,060, 87.7 per cent, long-term rate.

  Of the 1,644,640 recipients, 1,545,560 were aged over 25 and under 65. The breakdown is set out in the table.

  Age at 31 May 1998

  Recipients

  Percentage

  All ages

  1,644,640

  100

  25 to 34

  145,500

  9

  35 to 44

  252,220

  15

  45 to 54

  464,420

  28

  55 to 641

  683,420

  42

  1 Includes 25,220 women over pension age

  Note:

  The figures are taken from a 5 per cent. scan of the computer and
  exclude a small number of cases not on the system.
  174
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate his Department has made of the number of those currently receiving incapacity benefit who are capable of employment. [55933]

  Mr. Timms
  In order to qualify for Incapacity Benefit, a person must be assessed as "incapable of work" either for their own occupation or under the All Work Test. This does not mean that people who satisfy the All Work Test are unable to do any work at all: it simply establishes that their incapacity is such that it would be unreasonable to expect them to seek work as a condition for getting benefit. In practice, many people who satisfy the All Work Test may be capable of doing some work given the right help and support: survey evidence shows that around two million disabled people already work and over one million more would like to do so if they were given the right assistance.

  We intend to change the All Work Test so that, as well as assessing people's incapacity in order to determine their benefit entitlement, it also provides information about their capacities. Together with a wider assessment of employability, this information can then be used to provide the help and support which disabled people need if they are to seek to return to work and increase their independence.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of current claimants have been in receipt of incapacity benefit for(a) under six months, (b) six to 12 months, (c) one to two years and (d) over two years. [55941]

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

  Recipients of incapacity benefit at 31 March 1997

  Recipients

  Percentage

  All durations

  1,797,900

  100

  Under 6 months

  170,900

  10

  6 months to 1 year

  114,700

  6

  1 to 2 years

  164,900

  9

  2 years and over

  1,347,400

  75

  source:

  1 per cent. sample of claimants

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate his Department has made of the savings from means-testing incapacity benefit for the first two years of all new claims. [55937]

  Mr. Timms
  No such estimate has been made.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy not to reduce benefits for those claiming incapacity benefit, who are deemed fit for work, who reject a job or training place; and if he will make a statement. [56248]

  Mr. Timms
  It is a condition for receiving Incapacity Benefit that a person is assessed as "incapable of work" either for their own occupation or under the All Work Test. People who do not satisfy the appropriate test may claim Jobseeker's Allowance if they satisfy the basic
  175
  labour market entitlement conditions for the receipt of that benefit; that a person must be available for, and actively seeking, work and have a Jobseeker's Agreement which remains in force.

  Jobseekers who refuse an offer of employment or a place on a prescribed training scheme without good cause are liable to a benefit sanction. It is recognised that those with health problems can be at a disadvantage in the labour market, and people may therefore restrict their availability for work in any way providing the restrictions are reasonable in the light of their physical or mental condition. Any agreed restrictions on a jobsSeeker's availability must be taken into account when considering a question of good cause.

  Child Care
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate is provided by his Department's Family Resources Survey of the number of children aged 0 to 11 years whose childcare during the hours of parental employment is provided primarily by a grandparent or other non-parental family member. [56403]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey, the latest available, shows that about 1.4 million of children aged under 11, where at least one parent is in regular paid work, receive regular childcare from a relative.

  Note:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 100,000

  2.The quoted figure may include some of those children who are regularly looked after by a non working parent.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents who are in receipt of state benefits live in the West Chelmsford parliamentary constituency; how many are receiving help under the New Deal for Lone Parents; and how many have gone into employment since receiving that help. [56406]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not held by parliamentary constituency.

  Income Support statistics can be broken down by local authority district. These show that, as at February 1998, there were 1,000 lone parents receiving Income Support in the district covered by Chelmsford Borough Council.

  Lone parents are free to visit whichever Jobcentre they find most convenient; it is likely that those living in the West Chelmsford constituency will use the Chelmsford Jobcentre. Between 6 April and 23 October 1998, when the New Deal for Lone Parents was available for those making a new or repeat claim for Income Support, 64 lone parents attended an initial interview at the Chelmsford Jobcentre. Of these, 54 decided to take advantage of the service offered under the New Deal for Lone Parents. 19 have since taken up employment.
  176
  From 26 October 1998, the New Deal for Lone Parents has been extended to all lone parents on Income Support, including those whose claim was established before April 1998.

  Note:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Inquiry; sample size 5 per cent.; figures rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  Widow's Benefits
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost to public funds of introducing means testing for widow's benefit, and extending the benefit to male claimants; if he will estimate the number of people who would lose benefit under such a system, indicating their average financial loss; and if he will make a statement. [56247]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available. Estimates would depend on the form of means testing to be applied.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence is provided by his Department's Family Resources Survey on the earnings levels of those receiving widow's benefits. [55663]

  Angela Eagle
  The Family Resources Survey (FRS) collects information on the earnings and other income of widows together with information on the income of other members of their households.

  In 1996–97, the FRS sample included 140 widows who were in receipt of widows' benefits (widowed mother's allowance and widow's pension) and who also had earnings. The average weekly gross earnings of these widows at the time of interview was around £160 and the median gross earnings of this group was about £110 per week.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Workplace Drug Monitoring
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is regarding drug and alcohol testing in the workplace. [56732]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no proposals to require random testing in the workplace for alcohol or drugs. The Government encourage individual employers to act in accordance with guidance issued by the Health and Safety Executive: "Drug Misuse at Work", issued earlier this year, and "Don't Mix it" issued in 1996. I am placing copies in the Library of the House.

  Raves
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have died at rave events in the last five years; and how many of those deaths were as a direct result of attending the event. [56905]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  177
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Brian Cotter, dated 28 October 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary question on deaths at rave events.
  Data on the number of deaths that take place at specific venues, such as raves, are not routinely collected at death registration. However, in some cases the coroner may mention on the death certificate that a death occurred at a rave. The number of deaths where the term 'rave' was mentioned on the death certificate is given in the table below for 1994–97. Equivalent data for deaths which occurred prior to 1994 could only be supplied at disproportionate cost.

  Number of deaths in England and Wales known to be associated with raves, 1994–97

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1994

  1

  1995

  1

  1996

  1

  1997

  2

  Voting System Commission
  Mr. Stuart Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System will be published. [57390]

  Mr. Straw
  The report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System will be published tomorrow at 11am. At that time, copies will be available in the Vote Office.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Council hopes to find time for an early debate in the House of Commons.

  Party Conferences
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make public funds available to pay for the cost of producing and distributing photographic security passes for the 1998 Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat party conferences. [56781]

  Mr. Straw
  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides for the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, to pay grants toward the security costs of qualifying political parties' annual Party Conferences.

  We have yet to receive applications in respect of grants for security passes for the 1998 annual Party Conferences.

  Police Budgets (Traffic Expenditure)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of police budgets was spent on traffic(a) in Gloucestershire and (b) nationally in the last year for which figures are available. [56567]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not collected centrally. The allocation of resources to different functions is an operational matter for individual chief constables.
  178
  Traffic policing does not necessarily occur independently of other police duties, and the number of officers deployed to the traffic division is not indicative of the money spent on traffic policing. A large part of traffic officers' time is spent dealing with ordinary crime. It is an advantage that traffic officers deal with matters unrelated to traffic and that beat officers will also deal with traffic offences, thus contributing to more efficient ways of policing.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice is issued to police forces about the siting of speed cameras, with particular reference to those which are not accompanied by warning signs; and what proportion of speed cameras do not have accompanying warning signs. [56553]

  Mr. Boateng
  Guidance on the siting of speed cameras has been issued to chief constables in the Home Office Circular: "The Use of Automatic Detection Devices for Road Traffic Law Enforcement (38/1992)" and to highway authorities in the then Department of Transport Circular: "Use of Technology for Traffic Enforcement: Guidance on Deployment (Roads 1/92)". Further guidance on camera signing has been issued to highway authorities in the then Department of Transport Circular: "Traffic Signal and Speed Camera Signing (Roads 1/95)". Copies of these documents have been placed in the Library.

  Decisions on the siting of fixed speed cameras and the provision of warning signs are for local highway authorities to determine, in consultation with chief officers of police. The devices are deployed at accident hotspots or in areas where excessive speed is known to contribute to dangerous driving conditions. The provision of camera warning signs is recommended but is not mandatory. They are intended to identify the presence of cameras within a particular area rather than individual sites, as that would restrict the effect of the cameras to those sites.

  Details of the proportion of speed cameras which are not accompanied by warning signs are not recorded centrally.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to restrict the sale of electoral registers; if he will consider allowing individuals to have their names removed from lists which are sold to certain organisations; and if he will make a statement. [56562]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The sale of the electoral register is one of the issues currently under review by the Working Party on Electoral Procedures, which I chair. We are considering a range of options, which include allowing individuals' details to be excluded from the register which is sold on for commercial use.

  Criminal Information (Housing Associations)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow the police to provide the names of convicted criminals to housing associations. [56564]

  Mr. Boateng
  The police have a common law power to disclose information where necessary for the prevention or detection of crime, and would doubtless use this to disclose information to housing associations where they judged it to be necessary.

  Section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 clarified the position with regard to the disclosure of information and, following that, the Home Office and Data Protection Registrar have issued a joint Statement setting out how this should properly be done.

  The guidance on information sharing, including the joint Statement, is included in the Home Office's "Guidance on Statutory Crime and Disorder Partnerships", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. It is also available via the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cdact/actgch5.htm

  Firearms Compensation
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to pay the compensation to former owners of firearms who surrendered them under Option C. [56558]

  Mr. Boateng
  Over 7,300 claimants have already received compensation totalling £9.3 million under Option C of the large calibre handgun compensation scheme and the voluntary surrender scheme for small calibre pistols. In addition around 750 offers of payment totalling £770,000 are awaiting acceptance by the claimant.

  Processing these Option C claims, especially those from firearms dealers, has been difficult, mainly because the evidence of value provided in support of the claims has often proved on examination to be insufficient, resulting in the need for further inquiries, while there has been a need to identify and eliminate a large number of ineligible items surrendered for compensation under the heading of ancillary equipment. This has tended to slow the rate of progress on Option C claims, but it has also enabled Firearms Compensation Section (FCS) staff to build up their expertise in resolving the difficulties presented by these claims.

  We are now using this core of experienced staff as the basis for expanding the number of examining teams to 17, which, when fully staffed, should increase the overall staff numbers in the FCS to 115, more than double the original complement. The first tranche of 20 new staff took up post on 26 October 1988, and the expansion will continue as rapidly as possible, subject to the need to maintain standards of scrutiny.

  This major expansion of the Section should help to increase the processing rate substantially and reduce waiting time. It could not have been carried out any sooner because of the need to ensure a consistency of approach in the examination of the Option C claims, both in the interests of claimants and to ensure that payments are properly made in accordance with the terms of the compensation scheme.
  180
  This action is in addition to the measures the then Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), outlined in his reply to a written question from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), on 30 July 1998, Official Report, column 393. The target is still to complete most Option C payments by the end of the year, and the remaining payments as soon as possible thereafter. We will continue to do all we can to shorten the timescale for completion of the work if at all possible.

  Progress is also being made with the Option A and B claims, submitted during February under the statutory surrender scheme for small calibre pistols. Over 5,700 claims have been paid, over half the total received, and the remainder should be completed by the end of the year. Until the Option C claims under this scheme have been examined in detail, it is not possible to give a firm date for their completion. Work on these claims will begin as soon as the overall work position permits.

  I can understand the impatience felt by compensation claimants who are anxious to receive their payments as quickly as possible. However, there is also a need to ensure that all claims are properly scrutinised to guard against fraud and ensure that payments are correctly made. The Government also wish to bring this matter to a conclusion as quickly as possible and we have taken the steps I have outlined to help achieve this.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his most recent estimate of(a) the administrative costs and (b) the cost of compensation payments arising from the ban on the ownership of handguns. [56174]

  Mr. Boateng
  Our current estimate of the cost of the compensation schemes for large-calibre handguns and small-calibre pistols remains at around £128 million, of which about £8 million is in respect of police and Home Office administration costs. The compensation figure is subject to revision as further claims under Option C of the schemes are examined.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards those from Kosovo seeking asylum. [56563]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All claims for asylum from citizens of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including those from the province of Kosovo, are considered on their merits within the terms of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Consideration takes into account the latest information and advice on the country situation from a range of sources, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Where an application for asylum is refused, consideration is given to granting leave to remain exceptionally outside the Immigration Rules on humanitarian grounds. We have not recently returned to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia any ethnic Albanians who have been refused asylum here.

  Applications and decisions for the period January to September 1998 inclusive are set out in the table. The statistical return does not differentiate between citizens of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by ethnicity.

  181

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and decisions on application, 1998 by month, nationals of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  Applications

  Decisions

  Port

  In-country

  Total

  Grants of asylum

  Exceptional leave to enter/remain

  Refusal2,3

  Total

  January

  185

  90

  270

  120

  align="right">*

  *

  125

  February

  175

  100

  270

  95

  *

  10

  105

  March

  185

  95

  280

  100

  15

  *

  115

  April

  240

  145

  385

  100

  20

  5

  125

  May

  180

  135

  315

  120

  10

  —

  130

  June

  290

  390

  680

  110

  5

  5

  120

  July

  225

  620

  845

  50

  20

  10

  80

  August

  335

  575

  905

  50

  0

  10

  60

  September

  300

  570

  870

  40

  0

  30

  70

  Total

  2,110

  2,715

  4,825

  790

  75

  70

  930

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2

  2 Includes Non-compliance refusals (Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview)

  3 Includes Third Country decisions (Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country)

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum cases were awaiting decision(a) on 1 May 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [56166]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at 30 April 1997, there were 54,020 applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, awaiting an initial decision. The figure fell to 50,950 in March 1998. As at the end of September 1998, it stood at 57,545.

  This partly reflects increases in asylum applications from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and the Slovak Republic.

  Illegal Entry
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidents of clandestine illegal entry have been reported to his Department(a) in each of the last five years and (b) in the most recent period for which figures are available; [56191]

  (2) how many illegal entrants have been removed from the United Kingdom in (a) each of the last five years and (b) the most recent period for which figures are available. [56189]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on illegal entrants removed from the United Kingdom between 1 January 1993 and 30 June 1998 are given in Table 1.

  In addition to clandestine illegal entrants detected directly by the Immigration Service, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate also receives notification of "self-confessed" clandestine entry and referrals of instances of possible clandestine entry and often involving groups of people, from other sources, such as the police. Regrettably, there is no central record of the numbers of such referrals received. The available information, which relates to the numbers of clandestine entrants on whom notice of illegal entry was served between 1 January 1994 and 30 June 1998, is given in Table 2.
  182

  Table 1. Persons removed1 from the United Kingdom as a result of illegal entry action2, 1993–983,4,5

  Year

  Persons leaving the United Kingdom

  1993

  3,790

  1994

  3,280

  1995

  3,160

  1996

  3,400

  19974

  4,490

  19984,5

  2,300

  1 Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after illegal entry action had been initiated against them

  2 Covers persons served with papers and dealt with as illegal entrants as defined by section 33(1) 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

  Table 2. Persons served with papers as clandestine illegal entrants1, 1994–982

  Year

  Persons served with illegal entry papers1

  1994

  1,810

  1995

  3,350

  1996

  4,110

  19973

  4,030

  19983,4

  3,530

  1 Illegal entrants are defined by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971. These data cover clandestine illegal entrants only

  2 Data are rounded

  3 1997 and 1998 data are provisional

  4 1998 data are for 1 January to 30 June only

  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, to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), in how many cases of clandestine illegal entry the individuals concerned have been referred to a place where their circumstances can be assessed and any applications processed according to the most recent figures which are available. [56173]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As I explained in my letter of 24 August to the hon. Member, it is the normal practice of the Immigration Service to respond to incidents where immigration offenders are detected, although there will be
  183
  occasions when immigration staff are already deployed dealing with other incidents and we are unable to respond immediately.

  The Immigration Service is consulting the police forces most affected to ensure that incidents are dealt with properly. In areas where it is necessary, we hope to have a standard agreement in place in the next few months between the police and the Immigration Service which will provide a clear mechanism for dealing with clandestine entrants.

  Local immigration offices have not, hitherto, been required to keep records of the number of requests to attend to which they have been unable to respond and this information has not been collected centrally. They have now been asked to collect and submit this information.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place for the police to deal with cases of clandestine illegal entry where immigration officers are unable to attend. [56190]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Immigration Service endeavours to respond to all incidents involving clandestine entrants. As a result of the considerable rise in clandestine entry this year, there are occasions where resources are stretched so that the Immigration Service is unable to respond immediately. On such occasions, the Immigration Service tries to ensure that the individuals concerned are referred to a place where their circumstances can be assessed and any applications processed. The Immigration Service is consulting the police forces most affected to ensure that incidents are dealt with properly. In areas where it is necessary, we hope to have a standard agreement in place shortly between the police and the Immigration Service to provide a clear mechanism for dealing with clandestine entrants.

  Targeted Policing
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects targeted policing of areas to be implemented in respect of(a) the initial 20 areas and (b) other areas; [56180]

  (2) what criteria will be used to select areas to be made subject to targeted policing. [56182]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are currently considering specific criteria on which the money to be made available for the projects forming the targeted policing element of the Crime Reduction Programme will be allocated. We will certainly be adopting an evidence-based approach to targeted action and expecting careful evaluation of the outcome of each project which is supported.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much additional funding is to be made available to police authorities in areas containing targeted policing initiatives; [56178]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of additional police officers required to implement targeted policing of areas. [56177]

  Mr. Boateng
  The value of targeting policing effort at identified problems as part of a strategy to reduce crime and disorder is that it enables chief officers to decide how to deploy their resources most effectively to that end. A pre-requisite is that the strategy should be evidence-based,184
  that is based on an analysis of the local crime and associated problems and that policing tactics are adopted in the light of the analysis. The crime and disorder audits required by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 support this approach. Equally, our approach is output-driven and we will expect careful evaluation to demonstrate the extent to which crime is reduced as a result of any strategy and how that fits with the locally agreed targets for crime reduction. Experience around the country shows that targeted policing does not require additional police officers or other resources to be successful. However, to help forces develop this approach to crime reduction, we are making over £30 million available over the next three years for targeted policing projects as part of the crime reduction strategy.

  This funding is in addition to the extra £1.24 billion which will be available to police authorities in England and Wales over the next three years under the Government's spending plans announced in the summer. This settlement, along with savings from the 2 per cent. year on year efficiency improvements which police forces will be asked to achieve, will help to ensure that more resources are focused on the front line against crime.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation took place between the Metropolitan Police and his Department prior to the arrest of Senator Pinochet of Chile; and when. [57029]

  Mr. Straw
  Ministers and civil servants in the Home Office were kept informed by the Metropolitan Police of events leading up to Senator Pinochet's arrest on 16 October.

  The decision to issue a provisional warrant for the arrest of Senator Pinochet was taken by the Bow Street Magistrate under section 8(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989 in response to a request from an extradition partner.

  Trans-sexuals
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department has taken to co-ordinate a review of the issues relating to the legal status of trans-sexual persons; and if he will make a statement. [56460]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Matters of concern to transsexuals are the responsibility of a number of Government Departments. The Government are considering how best to take forward the issues raised by the recent judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of two British trans-sexuals, Horsham and Sheffield.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the names of those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [56791]

  Mr. Straw
  I will write to my hon. Friend with the information as soon as possible. A copy will be placed in the Library.

TREASURY

  Gaining and Betting Duty
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's estimate of the gaming and betting duty forgone as a result of betting over the Internet. [57229]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No estimate of the gaming and betting duty forgone as a result of betting over the Internet is available.

  Tourism (VAT)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the level of VAT for the tourism industry; and if he will make a statement regarding his policy on the taxation of tourism. [56552]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have no plans for a reduced rate of VAT for tourism. Customs are, however, carefully studying a report by the British Tourist Authority on the scope for a reduced rate in this area.

  Abortions
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many abortions were performed in England and Wales on women resident in Northern Ireland by weeks gestation in the last five years for which figures are available; [56936]

  (2) what is the total number of abortions carried out on residents of Northern Ireland in England and Wales since 1970; [56938]

  (3) how many abortions were performed in England and Wales for each of the statutory grounds of the Abortion Act 1967 as amended on women resident in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [56937]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Crispin Blunt, dated 28 October 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary questions on abortions.
  The information on how many abortions were performed in England and Wales for each of the statutory grounds on women resident in Northern Ireland requested is shown in the following table.

  Legal abortions performed in England and Wales on residents of Northern Ireland by statutory grounds, 1993–97

  Statutory grounds

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  All grounds

  1,629

  1,678

  1,548

  1,573

  1,572

  A (alone or with B, C or D)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  B (alone)

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  B (with C or D)

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  C (alone)

  1,574

  1,581

  1,488

  1,538

  1,544

  D (alone, or with C)

  53

  94

  59

  34

  28

  E (alone)

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  E (with A, B, C or D)

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  F or G

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics
  186
  I have enclosed a copy of "Conditions of the Act and statutory grounds" (for abortion) from the Abortion Annual Reference Volume series AB No 23 to explain the codes used.
  Information on abortions by weeks gestation is shown in the following table.

  Legal abortions performed in England and Wales on residents of Northern Ireland by gestation (weeks), 1993–97

  Gestation (weeks)

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Total

  1,629

  1,678

  1,548

  1,573

  1,572

  Under 9

  537

  575

  521

  486

  460

  9–12

  784

  797

  744

  800

  810

  13–19

  280

  280

  260

  252

  266

  20+

  28

  26

  23

  35

  36

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Information on the total number of abortions carried out on residents of Northern Ireland in England and Wales is shown in the following table.

  Terminations to residents of Northern Ireland performed in England and Wales, 1970–1997

  Year

  Number of abortions

  1970

  199

  1971

  648

  1972

  775

  1973

  1,007

  1974

  1,092

  1975

  1,115

  1976

  1,142

  1977

  1,244

  1978

  1,311

  1979

  1,425

  1980

  1,565

  1981

  1,441

  1982

  1,510

  1983

  1,460

  1984

  1,530

  1985

  1,637

  1986

  1,724

  1987

  1,746

  1988

  1,815

  1989

  1,816

  1990

  1,855

  1991

  1,775

  1992

  1,794

  1993

  1,629

  1994

  1,678

  1995

  1,548

  1996

  1,573

  1997

  1,572

  Source:

  Registrar General's Statistical Review 1970–1973

  Abortion Statistics Series AB nos 1–23, 1974–1996

  ONS Monitor AB 98/3, 1997

  All figures for 1997 are provisional, and relate to notifications received by 19 May 1998. They are published in ONS Monitor AB 98/3 Legal abortions in England and Wales 1997, but are liable to change very slightly when final annual 1997 data are published in the Abortions Annual Reference Volume series AB No 24 in December 1998.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many abortions were carried out on Barnet residents in 1997; how many of these were carried out in NHS hospitals; how many were paid for by the NHS; how many were carried out by agency arrangement and paid for by the NHS; and how many were carried out in the private sector(a) inside and (b) outside Barnet. [56904]
  187
  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Dr. Rudi Vis, dated 28 October 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary question on abortions in Barnet.
  Provisional results indicate that there were 1,674 abortions performed on residents of Barnet Health Authority (HA) in 1997. Of these, 993 abortions were performed in NHS hospitals: 861 were paid for by the NHS and 132 were carried out by agency arrangement and paid for by the NHS.
  Of the 681 abortions performed on non-NHS premises, 5 were terminated in Barnet HA and 676 were terminated outside Barnet HA.
  Figures for 1997 are provisional, and relate to notifications received by 19 May 1998. They are published in ONS Monitor AB 98/3 Legal abortions in England and Wales 1997, but are liable to change very slightly when final annual 1997 data are published in the Abortions Annual Reference Volume series AB No 24 in December 1998.

  Drug Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths in each of the last three years have been attributed to the use of(a) co-proxamol, (b) paracetamol and (c) paracetamol in combination with drugs other than dextropropoxphene. [56545]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 28 October 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on how many deaths in each of the last three years have been attributed to the use of (a) co-proxamol, (b) paracetamol and (c) paracetamol in combination with drugs other than dextropropoxyphene. The information requested is shown in the table below.

  Deaths attributable to co-proxamol and paracetamol in England and Wales, 1995–97

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Co-proxamol

  171

  176

  188

  Paracetamol

  324

  279

  335

  Paracetamol with drugs other than dextropropoxyphene

  75

  56

  62

  Often a number of drugs are listed on the death certificate. If, for example, both paracetamol and co-proxamol are mentioned, the death will occur twice in the table, once under paracetamol and once under co-proxamol.

  The figures for deaths where paracetamol or co-proxamol were mentioned on the death certificate include deaths attributed to these substances in combination with other drugs. Where two or more substances are listed together, the contribution, if any, of each to the death is unknown. Even where one substance is listed alone there may well be other factors with an important bearing on the death.

  Moreover, coroners do not always record all specific drugs associated with a death on the death certificate. Therefore, with the information available from death registration, it is only possible to give an approximation of the number of deaths associated with or directly due to these substances.

CABINET OFFICE

  Green and White Papers
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make more readily available to the public a full list of current green and white papers together with the relevant timescales for consultation. [56161]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Most green and white papers are published as Command Papers, full details of which are included in the Daily List of Publications issued by The Stationery Office Limited and which is available in printed form and via their Internet Web Site at the following address: (http://www.national-publishing.co.uk./d_ listfr.html)

  A complete list also appears on the UK Official Publications Bibliographic database (http://www.ukop/co.uk) which is published jointly by The Stationery Office Limited and Chadwyck-Healey Ltd.

  Following publication of the Service First Unit's guidance How to conduct written consultation exercises, all consultation documents should also now be published in full on the Internet with information provided as to where responses should be sent and the deadline for these to be received. Officials from my Department are currently considering the practicality of creating a single entry point on the Internet which would provide an index and links to all Command Papers wherever they might appear on the Internet.

  Workplace Drug Monitoring
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proposals he has for random testing in the workplace for(a) alcohol and (b) drugs; and in respect of which workplaces. [56498]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Government have no proposals to require random testing in the workplace for alcohol or drugs. The Government encourage individual employers to act in accordance with guidance issued by the Health and Safety Executive: "Drug Misuse at Work", issued earlier this year and "Don't Mix it" issued in 1996. I am placing copies in the library of the House.

WALES"

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new measures he proposes to assist manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement. [56490]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government inherited an economy displaying pressures which have led to boom-bust instability in the past. As a result, the economy needed to slow to a more sustainable rate. The Government recognise the concerns of manufacturers and exporters about the pound. They are pursuing policies to deliver long-term economic stability, the essential platform for encouraging high levels of growth and employment in the manufacturing industry, as in the whole economy. In Wales, our New Economic Agenda, Pathway to Prosperity sets out a programme for manufacturing industry in Wales to achieve world class standards.

  Welsh Highland Railway
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has received from the Countryside Council for Wales with regard to the proposed rebuilding of the Welsh Highland Railway through Snowdonia, with particular reference to(a) the impact on the site of special scientific interest at the Aberglaslyn Pass and (b) the visual impact of signs required by the Railway Inspectorate. [56927]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The decision in this case will be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who has received a representation from the Countryside Council for Wales on the proposed Welsh Highland Railway Order. The CCW did not object to the project in principle but raised a number of issues for consideration by the Secretary of State, including a recommendation that no planting or seeding should be carried out on the exposures at the Aberglaslyn SSSI. They did not comment on the

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

  Rods

  Drifts nets

  Other nets1

  All nets

  Numbers caught

  Total weight caught (kg)

  Numbers caught

  Total weight caught (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

  14,0592* (78%)3*

  51,091

  43,561

  157,667

  13,005

  44,644

  56,566

  202,311

  1994

  24,891 (75%)3 *

  94,022

  46,674

  174,189

  19,783

  67,728

  66,457

  241,917

  1995

  16,006 (70%)3 *

  61,009

  51,435

  187,597

  16,224

  58,139

  67,659

  245,736

  1996

  17,444 (63%)3 *

  71,469

  18,801

  73,920

  13,879

  51,788

  32,680

  125,708

  19974

  13,047 (73%)3 *

  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 to represent 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

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consumer Marketing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce controls over consumer marketing to ensure that information given or implied is not misleading or easily misconstrued. [56072]

  Dr. Howells
  There are already many controls to ensure that the marketing activities of companies are not misleading. Under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 it is a criminal offence to apply, in the course of a trade or business, false or misleading statements to goods and to knowingly or recklessly do so in respect of services. The self-regulatory system of advertising and sales promotion control, backed up by the possibility of action by the Director General of Fair Trading under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988, is also designed to prevent false or misleading information in advertisements and other promotional material. In 190
  visual impact of signs but other parties raised this issue and it was considered by the Inspector at the public local inquiry into the scheme.

  I understand that my right hon. Friend has received the Inspector's Report and is considering it.

  Salmon
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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 if he will provide the same information for fish classed (x) 1 sea winter, (y) 2 sea winter and (z) 3 sea winter fish. [55568]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Catch statistics are recorded on an England and Wales basis, and the available information is given in the following 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.

  addition there are specific statutes which address misleading claims in sectors such as medicines, food and drink and financial services. The Government continue to monitor the performance of all such measures and, where necessary and proportionate, would not hesitate to propose new ones.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices have(a) opened and (b) closed since 1979 by county, and if he will list them. [55726]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that, from the end of March 1993 to date, 583 sub-post offices have opened and 1,614 have closed. I have asked for a more detailed breakdown of these data and will place a copy in the Library of the House as soon as possible.
  191
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if redundancy packages of sub-postmasters/mistresses who have lost their jobs following closure of their sub-post offices take into consideration(a) loss of future earnings and (b) capital lost from their business as a result of closure. [55771]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Sub-postmasters are not employees of the Post Office, but are independent self-employed agents operating under a contract for services with Post Office Counters Ltd. I understand from the Post Office that this contract may be terminated by either party upon three months notice with no financial penalty on either side. Consequently, sub-postmasters do not receive redundancy payments in the event that their post office closes, or relocates to alternative premises.

  I also understand that a Discretionary Payment Fund exists from which payments may be made to sub-postmasters in these circumstances provided that all eligibility criteria for consideration for such a payment are met. Each application is considered on its merits. This fund is jointly managed by Post Office Counters Ltd. and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. It is not part of the contract for services between the sub-postmaster and Post Office Counters Ltd.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints he has received from sub-postmasters/mistresses over(a) the manner in which their sub-post offices were closed down and (b) the post office appeal procedure; and what action was taken to deal with such complaints. [55772]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department occasionally receives representations about the termination of a sub-postmaster's contract with Post Office Counters Ltd. and the associated appeal procedure, but has no locus to intervene in such contractual matters.

  Ministerial Visits (Media Offices)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the official visits he has paid to the company offices of(a) newspapers and (b) other media organisations during the summer adjournment, indicating the subjects discussed on each occasion. [56662]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: During the Summer adjournment I made the following official visits to the company offices of newspapers and other media organisations:

  Date

  Organisation

  4 September

  The Mail Offices, Hartlepool

  Constituency business

  23 September

  YCTV, Ladbrooke Grove

  Personal profile interview

  6 October

  This Morning Show, South Bank Studios, SE1

  The Millennium Dome

  12 October

  Forbes Magazine, New York

  General current affairs

  18 October

  Breakfast with Frost, BBC White City

  General current affairs

  Post Office
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration he has given to decreasing the external financing limit to allow the Post Office to invest in new projects. [56658]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Any changes to the financial framework within which the Post Office operates, including the external financing limit, will be announced in the context of the Government's decisions on the review of the Post Office.

  Phillips
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his Department has held with Phillips concerning the company's future in the United Kingdom. [56422]

  Mr. Mandelson
  DTI ministers and officials are in regular contact with Phillips and are currently in discussions with the company regarding a potential inward investment at its television tube plant in Durham.

  Export Credits
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total value of export credits which have been issued by the Export Credits Guarantee Department for defence and security equipment in each of the last three financial years. [56899]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The total value of guarantees issued by ECGD for defence-related business in each of the last three years was as follows:

  £million

  Year

  Value of guarantees

  1995–96

  1,028

  1996–97

  404

  1997–98

  748

  An analysis of this business by market has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish an account of the suggestions, instructions and advice which he has given to the New Millennium Experience Company about the Millennium Experience. [55684]

  Mr. Mandelson
  As Shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) I have issued the Company with a Financial Memorandum and Accounts Direction, copies of which I laid in the Libraries of the House alongside the NMEC's Annual Report and Accounts on 30 July 1998,Official Report, column 564. In addition my role is to ensure that the Company meet the Prime Minister's five commitments on cost, content, national impact, legacy, and management.

  The New Millennium Experience Coordinating Group, which I chair, brings together representatives of the NMEC, the Millennium Commission and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to discuss progress in

  193
  meeting these commitments. The group is not, however, an executive body, and I have no executive role as far as the NMEC is concerned.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish an account of all the proposals received by himself or the New Millennium Experience Company for the content of the Millennium Experience, describing the(a) scrutiny and (b) response which each proposal received. [55685]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who support me in my role as shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) pass every proposal I receive for ideas for the content of Dome content to the NMEC. The NMEC has received over 5,000 unsolicited proposals about the content of the Dome, related events and works of art. All such proposals are acknowledged on receipt. All content proposals received to date have been considered by a panel of NMEC's Production team who have responsibility for the Dome's content. The criteria used to assess the proposals include deliverability, compatibility with the various content design briefs and with the overall theme of the Millennium Experience (Time to Make a Difference), cost and attractiveness to visitors. Whilst imaginative and unusual, many of the proposals fail against these criteria. Those considered to be of merit are fed into the NMEC's established creative processes for content development. However, as the project moves through its implementation phases the scope for unsolicited proposals being taken into account in the development of the content reduces.

  The costs of publishing details of the 5,000 proposals received, assuming the authors would agree to publication, are not considered to represent value for money.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the persons or organisations who will be responsible for providing the information and ideas to be conveyed in each zone of the Millennium Experience. [55686]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) strategy is to ensure that as broad a range of advice and opinion as possible is taken on board in the development of the zone content. The Company established, in December 1997, a Strategic Creative Review Group—"The Litmus Group"—which is particularly concerned with the information and ideas conveyed in each zone, and the means by which they are presented. The Litmus Group meets regularly with the Company, the exhibit zone designers and the sponsors. The Group's membership and terms of reference are set out in the NMEC's Annual Report and Financial Statements 1997/98 which were published and laid in the House on 30 July 1998,Official Report, column 564.

  In addition, on 21 October the Company announced the first group of "Godparent" advisers to the exhibit zones. All are experts in their fields with experience of communicating ideas in medicine, entertainment, science, the arts and the environment to wide audiences. They are Lord Puttnam (Work and Learn zones); Floella Benjamin (Local zone); Sir Neil Cossons (Mobility zone); Professor
  194
  Richard Gregory CBE (Mind zone); Sir Michael Peckham and Professor Catherine Peckham (Body zone); the Hon. Sara Morrison (National zone); Professor Christopher Frayling (Spirit zone); John Sorrell CBE (National Identity zone); Michael Jolly (Play zone); and Simon Jenkins (Communicate zone). The Company have also set up twelve Youth Councils around the country, each comprising twenty 10–16 year olds, and a UK Youth Council which includes representatives from the twelve Councils and from the major national youth agencies. The Councils act as advocates, researchers and reporters on Millennium Experience plans.

  Competitiveness White Paper
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the White Paper on Competitiveness will include details of the Concordat on Inward Investment. [56368]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: It is not my intention to include the details requested in the forthcoming Competitiveness White paper.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the names of those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [56818]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Department publishes the names of all those appointed to its Nationalised Industries and its Executive and Advisory non-departmental public bodies on the Public Appointments Unit Website (www.open.gov.uk/pau/paupoint.htm). This information was last updated as of 30 September 1998 and includes the date of appointment and remuneration. I am placing a copy of the full list in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Company Fraud
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce new measures to regulate companies which(a) trade fraudulently and (b) change their name. [56074]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have no new plans at present. My Department has and will continue to take enforcement action against directors who commit criminal offences or who are guilty of unfit conduct, or to refer matters to the appropriate authorities. For example, the Insolvency Service make such directors a target of disqualification action. More widely, the Department's current review of company law is examining how company law can be modernised to give an effective legal framework which will promote business competitiveness without compromising the essential protection for those involved in business transactions.

  Cigarette Lighters
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many seizures of substandard cigarette lighters have been made by trading standards officers in each year since 1995. [56073]
  195
  Dr. Howells
  Local authority trading standards departments notified my Department of six occasions in 1997 when consignments of unsafe cigarette lighters were seized. No seizures were reported for 1996. In addition, from 1996 to date, two suspensions and three prosecution actions have been reported. These actions were taken under the General Product Safety Regulations 1994. Records for 1995 are not readily available.

HEALTH

  Paramedics
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress his Department has made towards a national register for paramedics. [55778]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine considers petitions for state registration. I understand that a petition in respect of paramedics was submitted to the Council on 12 October 1998. The petition has not yet been submitted to the Government.

  Breast Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has evaluated into(a) comparative rates of screening detection and (b) treatment regimes for breast cancer in (i) France, (ii) Germany, (iii) the USA and (iv) the United Kingdom. [56040]

  Ms Jowell
  It is not possible to compare the National Health Service breast cancer screening programme with services in France, Germany and the United States of America as they do not have comprehensive population breast screening programmes.

  The Department has not itself commissioned any international comparisons of breast cancer treatment regimes. Treatment regimes will depend on protocols drawn up and agreed based on professional guidelines, research evidence, local organisation of health services and the needs and characteristics of the local population. However, the Department published in 1996 "Guidance on Improving Outcomes in Breast Cancer", the first in a series of evidence-based guidance on specific cancers. This included a systematic review of international research literature and evidence of effectiveness of breast cancer treatments. The guidance is being used to improve the provision of breast cancer screening services. Copies are available in the Library.

  Children's Diet
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he plans to take to raise the nutritional content of the diet of children. [56070]

  Ms Jowell
  We are committed to improving the health of our children and our recent Green Paper Our Healthier Nation contains proposals for activities to contribute to "The Healthy Schools Initiative". Our forthcoming White Paper will expand these proposals. Measures already announced to improve children's diets include the Government's Consultation Document on Nutritional
  196
  Standards for School Lunches and the forthcoming guidance on Food and Nutrition in Primary Teacher Training.

  Pain Killers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost to the NHS in each of the last three years of co-proxamol prescriptions; and what would the proportionate saving if co-proxamol was replaced by paracetamol alone prescriptions. [56544]

  Ms Jowell
  The net ingredient cost of co-proxamol prescription items dispensed in the community in England 1995 to 1997 is given in the table.

  Co-proxamol prescription items dispensed in the community England

  Year

  Net ingredient cost £million

  1995

  14.4

  1996

  13.8

  1997

  14.1

  Notes:

  1. The data are from the prescription cost analysis system and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England.

  2. The net ingredient cost refers to the cost of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs or fees. It does not include any adjustment for income obtained where a prescription charge is paid at the time the prescription is dispensed or where the patient has purchased a pre-payment certificate.

  3. Information about prescriptions dispensed in hospitals is not available centrally.

  It is estimated that about £9 million would have been saved in each of the last 3 years if all co-proxamol items had been replaced by appropriate paracetamol items. These estimates are based on the average price per tablet/milli-litre over each year. They make no allowance for the differences in the size of tablets of the two products ie. the estimates assume that a 500 milligramme paracetamol tablet replaces a 325 milligramme co-proxamol tablet.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to regulate children's homes which accommodate fewer than four children; and if he will make a statement. [56554]

  Ms Jowell
  We intend to extend regulation to children's homes which accommodate fewer than four children. We will set out our proposals in the forthcoming White Paper on Social Services.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery Distribution Fund
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 919, on what estimates of the percentages of the National Lottery Distribution Fund to be received by each of the six good

  197
  causes in 1999 and 2000 his decisions on the cash distribution were based; and if he will publish those estimates. [56255]

  Mr. Banks
  As I said in my earlier reply, our decisions were made on the basis of a new forecast of Lottery income for the present licence period. We now anticipate an extra £600 million for the Good Causes and have decided to allocate £200 million to the arts, sports, heritage and charities and £400 million to health, education and the environment. This will require adjustments to the current percentage shares and we will lay an Order giving effect to those adjustments after consulting the Lottery distributors.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to press for exemptions from the Multilateral Agreement on Investment for United Kingdom industries with particular reference to the(a) film and (b) publishing industries. [56153]

  Janet Anderson
  A successful conclusion to the MAI negotiations is most unlikely in the near future. We shall continue to consider the handling of the audiovisual sector within the MAI should negotiations resume. The Government have no plans to seek any form of exception for the publishing industry.

  Museum Admission Fees
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the potential cost to(a) the Victoria and Albert Museum, (b) the National Maritime Museum, (c) the Science Museum, (d) the Natural History Museum and (e) the Imperial War Museum in (i) lost revenues and (ii) VAT rebates, of his proposals to introduce free admission. [56907]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 27 October 1998]: Following the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), an extra £99 million was made available for museums and galleries over the next three years.

  Subject to achieving clear targets for efficiency and reform, this will enable the Trustees of the major national institutions to introduce free access for children from next year, for pensioners the following year, and for all in 2001. However, the decision to adopt any or all of the stages towards free admission remains with the Trustees of the individual museums.

  We are currently considering detailed submissions from the charging national museums about the precise level of compensation required, and are liaising with HM Customs and Excise about the VAT implications.

  National Lottery (Further Education)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the National Lottery was allocated to projects involving further education between May 1997 and September 1998. [56941]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 27 October 1998]: Between May 1997 and September 1998, the distributing bodies awarded £78.7 million to 77 projects involving further education. Details of Lottery awards may be found on the Department's web site at www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.

  National Lottery (Hospices)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many hospices have applied for National Lottery funding; and how many applications have been successful. [56687]

  Mr. Banks
  To date, 321 applications have been made by hospices for National Lottery funding. 33 applications totalling £6.3 million have so far been successful.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Independent Television Commission concerning the proposed provision of the digital ITV and ITV2 services on the digital services of British Sky Broadcasting; and if he will make a statement. [56419]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the Chairman of the Independent Television Commission from time to time to discuss a range of broadcasting issues, including the prospects for digital television across all delivery platforms. Whether to seek digital satellite carriage is a commercial decision for individual broadcasters—including ITV—and not one in which Ministers have a locus.

  World Cup
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support he has given to efforts to attract the 2006 Football World Cup to the United Kingdom. [56029]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government, from the Prime Minister down, are providing the fullest diplomatic and promotional support for the FA's bid to stage the 2006 World Cup. I hold regular meetings with the FA Campaign Team. I have personally discussed the bid with several members of the FIFA Executive Committee, either here in London or in their home countries. I will continue to accompany FA delegations to promote the bid as Parliamentary business allows. I have written to hon. Members urging them to use every opportunity to support the bid, and have been heartened by the positive response. I was delighted that the hon. Member, together with the hon. Member for Suffolk, West (Mr. Spring) and other right hon. and hon. Members, were able to join me at a reception at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 26 October at which Sepp Blatter, the FIFA President, following his meeting with the Prime Minister, was the principal guest.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Iran about(a) the continuation of the execution order against Salman Rushdie, and (b) the continuing violations of human rights with particular reference to executions. [56707]
  199
  Mr. Fatchett
  In New York on 24 September Dr. Kharrazi, the Iranian Foreign Minister, made an unequivocal statement of the Iranian Government's position on the threat to Salman Rushdie. He made it clear that his Government will take no action whatsoever to threaten the life of Salman Rushdie or anybody associated with his work, nor will it encourage or assist anybody to do so. We have long sought such assurances.

  We have made our concerns known to the Iranians about the recent increases in the bounty. The Iranian Government have always maintained that the bounty offered by the XV Khordad Foundation was a private matter over which they had no control. In his statement in New York Dr. Kharrazi said that his government disassociated themselves from the bounty and did not support it. We shall continue to look for ways of resolving this matter satisfactorily.

  We and our EU Partners intend to continue our policy of engagement with the Iranian regime. This will include, as in the past, keeping up pressure for improvements in some Iranian policies, including those affecting human rights. In particular, we shall continue to press the Iranians to allow a visit to Iran by the UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur, Maurice Copithorne.

  Loizidou v. Turkey
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals will be put forward by Her Majesty's Government as a member of the Council of Europe and as a guarantor power to seek enforcement of the judgment of the Court of Human Rights in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey. [56336]

  Ms Quin
  In line with Council of Europe procedure, the UK, along with other members of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, has invited Turkey to inform the Committee of the measures it proposes to take in consequence of the judgment, given its obligation under Article 53 of the Convention to abide by the Court's judgment.

  Tibet
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Chinese Government about China's occupation of Tibet. [56559]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The situation in Tibet is a matter of great concern. It is being addressed through our continuing bilateral and EU human rights dialogues with China. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited China in January, he encouraged Chinese leaders to enter into talks with the Dalai Lama in order to seek a lasting solution. He also raised a list of individual human rights cases, which included a number of Tibetans. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did the same when he met Chinese leaders earlier this month.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia regarding(a) attacks on civilians, arbitrary
  200
  arrests and expulsions, and (b) the actions of the Kosovo Liberation Army; and if he will make a statement about the situation in Kosovo. [56555]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have made frequent representations to the FYR government concerning the repressive actions of its security forces in Kosovo. In particular, we have condemned the indiscriminate attacks on civilians and the wanton destruction of their homes and livelihoods. We expect the FYR to comply fully with the demands of UNSCR 1199. NATO stands ready to act if they fail to do so. Equally, we expect the Kosovo Liberations Army to meet the demands of UNSCR 1199, including to cease hostilities.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that(a) independent human rights monitors have access to all parts of Kosovo, (b) resources are made available for the UN Human Rights Monitoring Programme, and (c) an independent international criminal court is set up; and if he will make a statement. [56778]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  (a) We co-sponsored United Nations Security Council resolution 1203 (adopted on 24 October) which places the weight of the Security Council behind the commitments made by President Milosevic to comply with early Security Council resolutions 1160 and 1199. The resolution calls for implementation of the agreement with the OSCE to allow 2,000 verifiers to deploy throughout Kosovo to monitor compliance with the earlier resolutions, assisted by NATO reconnaissance flights.

  (b) We have contributed £410,000 to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to support the setting up of a field operation in Kosovo.

  (c) We are among the first 120 states which decided on 17 July this year to establish the International Criminal Court. However, the Court will come into effect only when sixty States have ratified its Statute and will not have jurisdiction over events which take place before then.

  The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute war crimes against humanity throughout the territory of the former Yugoslavia, including Kosovo.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Albania
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance has been given by the United Kingdom Government to Albania in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [56718]

  Clare Short
  UK Government assistance to Albania began in 1993 and has focused on the regulation of capital markets, rural development, health reform, good government and the development of civil society. We have also provided assistance to Albania through multilateral organisations such as the EU, and during last year's disturbances we provided significant emergency assistance.
  201
  Early in 1997 there was a hiatus in bilateral assistance to Albania due to civil disturbances. Since then the programme has been restarted and is focusing on strengthening governance and civil society, rural development and health reform.

  Figures for UK bilateral and multilateral assistance are as follows:

  Bilateral

  Year

  £

  1998–99

  1800,000

  1997–98

  749,104

  1996–97

  1,038,000

  1995–96

  1,093,000

  1 Forecast

  Multilateral: (UK share)

  Year

  Total £

  Of which EC

  1997

  1—

  1—

  1996

  7,800,000

  5,900,000

  1995

  6,100,000

  3,900,000

  1 Not yet available

  Aid and Development Projects
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the 10 largest aid or development projects funded directly by her Department in the 12 months from 1 September 1997; and if she will make a statement. [56225]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: I list below the ten largest new commitments made by my Department in the 12 months from 1 September 1997. These commitments include both project and programme aid.

  Country

  Project title

  Commitment (£)

  Uganda

  Programme Aid for Poverty Reduction 1998–2000

  40,000,000

  Bangladesh

  Bhairab Bridge Project

  35,500,000

  India

  Andhra Pradesh Urban Services for the Poor

  35,000,000

  India

  Civil Society Support Programme

  25,000,000

  Ghana

  Programme Aid 1997

  20,000,000

  Tanzania

  Programme Aid 1997–98

  20,000,000

  Uganda

  Programme Aid (1997) Economic Reform and Primary Education

  20,000,000

  India

  Partnerships for Sexual Health

  18,940,000

  India

  UNICEF: Water and Environmental Sanitation

  15,625,000

  Sudan

  WFP 1998 Sudan Programme (UN Appeal)

  14,100,000

  Commitments to individual projects are made within the framework of country strategies, prepared in consultation with partner governments, which determine the priorities for our development assistance. The overall objective of our country strategies, and the development assistance programme as a whole, is to contribute to the elimination of poverty, as set out in our White Paper published a year ago.

  Jammu and Kashmir
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the current provision of aid to Jammu and Kashmir. [56717]

  Clare Short
  We are providing £500,000 this year to the International Committee of the Red Cross for their humanitarian assistance programme in Jammu and Kashmir and £60,000 to the Save the Children Fund. Under the Small Grants Scheme about £19,000 is being provided to help equip a maternity hospital in Anantnag.

  Developing Countries
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development by what means her Department assesses the economies of developing countries; what is her Department's policy towards assisting such economies; and if she will make a statement. [56541]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: My Department has an experienced group of economic advisers who monitor economic developments in major partner countries. Key assessments of the economies of developing countries are brought together in our Country Strategy Papers. These are developed drawing on the World Bank International Monetary Fund, and other multilateral and national sources of information.

  These strategy papers set out how we will build partnerships with poorer countries with the aim of poverty elimination through the promotion of sustainable development, in accordance with the policies in our White Paper, published last year.

  Monitoring and Accounting Procedures
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what systems are in place for monitoring how her Department's budget is spent by(a) the EU and (b) other recipient organisations. [56224]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: My Department monitors closely spending by the European Commission and other multilateral organisations through regular consultations, participation in meetings of the relevant governing bodies, executive boards and management committees. We maintain an oversight of their financial management systems and their annual audited accounts. All organisations which receive Department for International Development (DFID) funds are required to provide regular certified statements of expenditure, and reports by external auditors.

  Full details of DFID's monitoring and accounting procedures are set out in the Department's Office Instructions, copies of which are in the Library of the House of Commons. The European Commission and the Court of Auditors issue a variety of reports on EC development assistance, which the Government submit for Parliamentary scrutiny.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement
  203
  on her Department's assessment of the impact of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment on developing countries. [56538]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: Following France's decision to withdraw from MAI negotiations, it now seems most unlikely that an Agreement will be presented to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Ministers for signature in May 1999, as had been the intention of MAI negotiators. However the Government remain committed to working for the development of a liberal, rule-based system for international investment, which takes proper account of social, environmental and developmental issues, and which will be in the interests of developing countries.

  Uganda
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the recipient projects in Uganda of the £67 million for educational assistance [56535]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: The £67 million is to be disbursed over a five year period in support of the Government of Uganda's Education Sector Investment Plan (ESIP). The main priority of the ESIP is the achievement of Universal Primary Education by 2003, which is itself an important component of Uganda's broader poverty eradication effort.

  The ESIP has been developed with UK assistance in partnership with the Government of Uganda and other donors. It is to run from 1997 to 2003 and is expected to cost some £430 million in recurrent expenditure (1998–2001) and at least £370 million in new investment proposals. £60 million of our overall commitment will be disbursed as budgetary assistance towards these costs. The remaining £7 million is to be used for technical co-operation in support of the overall programme (including audit and financial reporting). As such, our contributions will not be tied to any particular projects but are intended to support the realisation of the ESIP programme as a whole.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish the names of those people she has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [56806]

  Clare Short
  I have appointed 51 people to public bodies since 1 May 1997.

  Name

  Position

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission

  Professor Trudy Harpham

  Member

  No remuneration

  Professor John Pendry

  Member

  No remuneration

  Professor Jang Dilawari

  Member

  No remuneration

  Professor William Hill

  Member

  No remuneration

  Know How Fund Advisory Board

  Christopher Beauman

  Member

  No remuneration

  Jim Cousins MP

  Member

  No remuneration

  Robert Davies

  Member

  No remuneration

  Dr. Judith Shapiro

  Member

  No remuneration

  Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill

  Member

  No remuneration

  204

  Name

  Position

  Advisory Committee on Overseas Economic and Social Research

  Professor Graham Chapmar

  Re-appointment Member

  No remuneration

  Professor Tony Killick

  Re-appointment Member

  No remuneration

  Dr. George Kolankiewicz

  Re-appointment Member

  No remuneration

  Professor Pat Caplan

  Member

  No remuneration

  Professor Anne Booth

  Member

  No remuneration

  Professor Jan Willem Gunning

  Member

  No remuneration

  Dr. Caroline Harper

  Member

  No remuneration

  Dr. Athar Hussein

  Member

  No remuneration

  Professor Carole Rakodi

  Member

  No remuneration

  Professor David Hulme

  Member

  No remuneration

  Dr. Frank Ellis

  Member

  No remuneration

  Professor Anil Markandya

  Member

  No remuneration

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  Carolyn Hayman

  Re-appointment Member

  £7,500

  Pendarell Kent

  Re-appointment Member

  £7,500

  Sir William Ryrie

  Re-appointment Deputy Chairman

  £9,000

  Overseas Service Pensions Scheme Advisory Board

  Timothy Davey

  Member

  No remuneration

  Harvey Smith

  Member

  No remuneration

  Development Awareness Working Group

  Tany Alexander

  Member

  No remuneration

  Douglas Bourn

  Member

  No remuneration

  Professor Tim Brighouse

  Member

  No remuneration

  Paddy Coulter

  Member

  No remuneration

  Liz Cumberbatch

  Member

  No remuneration

  Bisi Adeleye Fayemi

  Member

  No remuneration

  John Fisher

  Member

  No remuneration

  Jaya Graves

  Member

  No remuneration

  Libby Grundy

  Member

  No remuneration

  Judith Hemery

  Member

  No remuneration

  Phil Hope MP

  Member

  No remuneration

  Dr. Kim Howells MP

  Member

  No remuneration

  Elenid Jones

  Member

  No remuneration

  Robin Lloyd-Jones1

  Member

  No remuneration

  David McKenzie

  Member

  No remuneration

  Stephen MacCloskey

  Member

  No remuneration

  Jane Nelson

  Member

  No remuneration

  Ashok Ohri

  Member

  No remuneration

  Dan Rees

  Member

  No remuneration

  Tony Robinson

  Member

  No remuneration

  Scott Sinclair

  Member

  No remuneration

  Jon Snow

  Member

  No remuneration

  John Sutton

  Member

  No remuneration

  Derek Walker

  Member

  No remuneration

  Tom Wylie

  Member

  No remuneration

  1 Has now left and been replaced by David McKenzie.

DEFENCE

  Ships Support Agency
  Mr.Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence What have been the targets set for Ships Supports Agency on upkeep period timeliness for each of the years 1996–97,1997–98 and 1998–99; what were the achievements against the target in 1996–97 and 1997–98; and what factors influenced the selection of the target for 1998–99. [56038]

  Mr.Spellar
  The Ships Support Agency's targets and achievements against target for Upkeep period timeliness in 1996–97 may be found in the Cabinet Office's Next Steps Report 1997,a copy of which is in the Library of the House, The Agency's targets and achievements against target in 1997–98 are published in the Agency's Annual Report for 1997–98, a copy of which is also in the Library of the House. For the 1998–99 targets, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the former
  205
  Minister for the Armed Forces to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on 5 June 1998, Official Report, columns 397–98.

  The target for 1998–99 has been adjusted with the agreement of the Agency's owner, Chief of Fleet Support, and its customers to take account of known overruns on maintenance projects which were already in progress in April 1998, and the budget allocated to the Agency.

  RPAX Insurance Scheme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Territorial Army and (b) other reserve forces personnel are members of the RPAX insurance scheme; and what change there has been in membership since the scheme's inception. [56065]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  RPAX is a private insurance scheme provided for members of the Reserve Forces by Aon Risk Services. My Department strongly encourages Reservists to take advantage of the benefits that the scheme provides, but it is for Reservists themselves to decide whether they should do so. My Department therefore keeps no record of the number of Reservists who have joined the scheme, though I understand that the number joining has risen steadily since it was introduced in 1991.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of operating the Defence Export Services Organisation in each of the last three financial years. [56738]

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

  Redundant Military Equipment
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist to assist(a) public museums, (b) private museums and (c) private collectors in the acquisition of surplus or redundant military equipment. [56437]

  Mr. Spellar
  This subject was raised by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), on behalf of the naval museums, during the Easter Adjournment debate on 8 April 1998,Official Report, columns 282–84. I subsequently met him on 3 June.

  Following that meeting, I instructed officials in my Department to draft a set of guidelines to put in place more effective procedures for ensuring that assistance in obtaining surplus equipment can be provided to museums. In conducting this study officials in my Department will be consulting interested parties outside the Ministry of Defence.

  It would be premature, at this stage, to speculate on the outcome. I will write to the hon. Member for Colchester, once the new guidelines have been endorsed.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the names of those people he has 206
  appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [56800]

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

  Pay and Personnel Agency
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors were taken into account when deciding to relocate the PPA Pensions Office from Worcester to Cheadle Hulme; what assessment was made of the impact on the Worcester area of the change; what assessment he has made of the effect on the quality of work following the move; and if he will make a statement. [56561]

  Mr. Spellar
  The proposal to close the Pay and Personnel Agency (PPA) pensions office in Worcester and move the work to the existing spare accommodation on the PPA site in Cheadle Hulme arose from an efficiency review of the whole of the PPA.

  The main factors in the report were the proposals for the most efficient running of the PPA and the important savings arising from implementing them. I understand the disappointment of the 130 staff currently employed in the Worcester office but the proposed closure is part of a reorganisation of the Agency which, when completed, will produce significant and necessary savings in running costs. The review recognised the possibility of redundancies in the Worcester office, although the MOD will aim to find alternative work for as many staff as possible.

  The PPA management board are confident that the work can be satisfactorily transferred to Cheadle Hulme thus avoiding redundancies there. They also recognise the need for a careful transfer of skills to ensure that there is no lessening in the quality of the pensions work undertaken by the PPA.

  The efficiency review recommendations are currently the subject of consultation with MOD Trade Union officials and I shall make a further statement when that process is completed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland Assembly
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the progress of the Northern Ireland Assembly towards taking over executive functions. [54770]

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on progress made in respect of the new Assembly for Northern Ireland. [54777]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  A considerable amount of work has yet to be completed before executive and legislative responsibilities could be transferred to the Assembly. There has yet to be agreement on the number and
  207
  responsibilities of ministerial offices, or on the elements of a programme for government, or on areas for co-operation between North and South and how such co-operation should be put into effect. Even once agreements are reached, several Orders and Orders-in-Council will need to be made so that they can be given effect.

  Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are engaged in intensive discussions with the parties and the Irish Government with a view to reaching early agreement on how the necessary preliminary decisions can best be reached.

  Parades Commission
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions she has had with members of the Parades Commission concerning decisions taken by the commission in the summer. [54772]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Parades Commission is an independent body which makes decisions in respect of individual parades solely on the basis of the criteria laid down in the Public Processions Act 1998. The legislation also provides that the Secretary of State may, on application by the Chief Constable, review a determination issued by the Commission. For these reasons she did not discuss with the Parades Commission determinations being considered by it.

  Paramilitary Groups
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many assaults and murders have been carried out by paramilitary groups since 1 August. [54773]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 1 August, there has been one terrorist incident which led to the deaths of 29 persons in Omagh. This atrocity was subsequently claimed by the Real IRA. During the same period there have been 31 paramilitary style assaults as attributed in the table:

  Attributed to Loyalist Groups

  Attributed to Republican Groups

  Total

  Deaths

  0

  29

  29

  Paramilitary style attacks

  Shootings

  6

  1

  7

  Assaults

  20

  4

  24

  Notes:

  1. The above figures refer to the number of casualties as distinct from the number of incidents.

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

  Integrated Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to expand the opportunities for children to attend integrated schools. [54774]

  Mr. McFall
  Government will continue to respond to parental demand for integrated education by supporting 208
  the robust proposals for new Grant-Maintained Integrated schools or for the transformation of existing schools to integrated status. This year Malone Integrated College, an independent integrated secondary school, was awarded grant-aided status and six schools were given approval for transformation, bringing the total number of integrated schools to 40. A working group has also been established to examine ways of encouraging and promoting the further development of integrated education.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made on developing integrated schools. [54787]

  Mr. McFall
  This year Malone Integrated college, an independent integrated secondary school, was awarded grant-aided status and 6 schools were given approval to transform to integrated status, bringing the total number of integrated schools to 40 with a total enrolment of over 10,000 pupils. A working group has also been established to examine ways of encouraging and promoting the further development of integrated education.

  Economy
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in promoting a strong and sustainable economy in Northern Ireland. [54775]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson),Official Report, column 324.

  Belfast Agreement
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she is taking to ensure that proposals contained in the Belfast Agreement are enshrined in legislation. [54776]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The proposals in the Belfast Agreement are contained in the Northern Ireland Bill which was introduced to this House on 15 July, receiving its Third Reading on 31 July. Following consultations with the Northern Ireland political parties a number of changes and technical amendments were introduced after the Bill received its Second Reading in another place on 5 October. I expect the Bill to complete its parliamentary stages within the next few weeks opening the way for the Belfast Agreement to take effect in the new year.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement about the development of the peace process. [54778]

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on progress made in the Northern Ireland peace process. [54781]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  We are continuing to do everything in our power to implement all aspects of the Belfast Agreement. It produced solid gains for all those
  209
  involved and it remains the best hope for long term peace, political stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. While some difficult issues remain to be resolved, progress is being made on a number of fronts. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister, in consultation with the other parties, are preparing proposals regarding Ministerial portfolios; the shadow Assembly met during September and most recently on Monday 26 October and has positively addressed a range of issues; the Northern Ireland Bill is under detailed scrutiny in another place; the Police Commission, under the chairmanship of Chris Patten, has commenced work and the review of criminal justice is under way; measures to normalise the security situation have been introduced; and the early release programme has commenced.

  Terrorists
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if those convicted of terrorist offences related to Northern Ireland(a) in Northern Ireland and (b) in England and Wales since the Good Friday Agreement will be eligible for the increased remission of sentence provided for in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. [54779]

  Mr. Ingram
  Eligibility to apply for accelerated release is clearly spelt out in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Only those convicted of qualifying offences committed before 10 April 1998 will be eligible to be considered for release in accordance with the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.

  Independent Commission on Policing
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the work of the Independent Commission on Policing. [54780]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Independent Commission is consulting widely and has received almost 2,000 submissions—the vast majority from individual members of the public. It has met with key figures in the field of policing and has recently held a number of public meetings. As the Agreement says, the Commission will report no later than Summer 1999.

  Local Government
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the future funding of local government in Northern Ireland. [54782]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The present funding of local government in Northern Ireland is provided from the proceeds of the district rates; the General Exchequer

  Date

  Location

  Details

  Attribution

  19 July 1998

  Dill House, New Lodge, Belfast

  Andrew Kearney was shot in both legs after approximately 8 men had forced their way into his home. He died from his injuries.

  Members of IRA

  21 July 1998

  Corry Square, RUC, Newry

  A MK 15 mortar launched at the station from a van parked in a car park nearby. No injuries.

  Claimed by RIRA

  27 July 1998

  Garvagh Court, Londonderry

  Five masked and armed men forced entry into the home of Anthony and Francis Creane. Both brothers were shot and seriously wounded.

  Loyalists

  210
  Grant; other specific grants; loans; and fees and charges for services. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many illegally held weapons and explosive devices have been voluntarily decommissioned since 1 January. [54783]

  Mr. Ingram
  No weapons or explosives have yet been decommissioned. The British and Irish Governments brought decommissioning schemes into force on 30 June in accordance with the Agreement. All parties must implement the Agreement in full for it to work, including the decommissioning requirements.

  Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the case of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. [54784]

  Mr. Ingram
  Guardsmen Fisher and Wright were released on life licence by the Secretary of State on 2 September 1998. This decision took into account that while the Secretary of State had been carrying out a review of the cases, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 became law. Although she was aware that the Guardsmen had applied to the Sentence Review Commission for early release, the Secretary of State was conscious that the Sentences Act enables the early release of prisoners who were engaged in terrorism. The Guardsmen were in Northern Ireland as a consequence of that terrorism and committed the offence while on duty to counter it. At the time of her decision the Secretary of State was also aware that the first possible releases under the Sentences Act could have taken place from 7 September onwards.

  Taking all these factors into account, and having consulted me Lord Chief Justice as required by statute, the Secretary of State decided that the Guardsmen should be released on life licence under the Prison Act 1953.

  Terrorist Offences
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what major terrorist incidents pertaining to Northern Ireland have occurred since 15 July; and which organisations the RUC assesses to have been responsible. [54785]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RUC has advised that the following major terrorist incidents have occurred since 15 July 1998.
  211

  Date

  Location

  Details

  Attribution

  1 August 1998

  Banbridge Town Centre

  Following coded telephone warnings a car bomb exploded. Approximately 35 persons injured and extensive damage to the town.

  Claimed by RIRA

  6 August 1998

  Narrow Water, Warrenpoint

  An explosion was heard in this area. A substantial crater was located during the subsequent clearance operation.

  Republican

  15 August 1998

  Market Street, Omagh

  A bomb contained in an abandoned car exploded at this location. Twenty-nine persons were killed and hundreds injured.

  RIRA

  5 September 1998

  Portadown

  Constable Frankie O'Reilly was seriously injured by a blast bomb which was thrown at police lines. He died from his injuries on 6 October 1998.

  Claimed by Red Hand Defenders

  Notes:

  The RUC does not categorise terrorist incidents as major or otherwise, as there are inherent difficulties in that what may be perceived by one person as a major terrorist incident may not be perceived as such by another. This table has been provided in order to be as helpful as possible.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the number of terrorist acts of violence over the past six months. [54788]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the past 6 months there have been 44 deaths as a result of the security situation including the deaths of 29 innocent members of the public at Omagh and more recently the murder of RUC Constable Frank O'Reilly. Furthermore, there have been an unacceptable number of brutal paramilitary style assaults which have no place in a civilised society.

  Nevertheless—and despite these appalling incidents—overall paramilitary activity is at an historically low level. This is a direct consequence of the Belfast Agreement. As it takes root, the Government and the vast majority of people of Northern Ireland share the hope and the determination that the frequency of paramilitary violence will be further reduced and eventually become a thing of the past.

  Drumcree
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of this year's security operation mounted at Drumcree. [54786]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson),Official Report, column 328.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Northern Ireland first year students have accepted places in English, Scottish and Welsh universities and colleges for the 1998–99 academic year; and how this number compares with the total number of Northern Ireland students who enrolled in English, Scottish and Welsh universities and colleges in each of the previous four years. [54789]
  212
  Mr. McFall
  The information requested is as follows:

  English universities and colleges

  Scottish universities and colleges

  Welsh universities and colleges

  1994–95

  1,989

  1,504

  115

  1995–96

  2,110

  1,482

  118

  1996–97

  2,248

  1,633

  133

  1997–98

  2,506

  1,690

  155

  1998–991

  2,339

  1,665

  163

  1 Position at 23 September 1998 Final figures will not be available until November

  Football Clubs
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support Her Majesty's Government intends to provide for football clubs in Northern Ireland to enable them to meet the standards demanded by health and safety legislation. [56341]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Funds are currently available to football clubs in Northern Ireland through the Sport Lottery Fund, administered by the Sports Council, to assist them to meet the standards demanded by health and safety legislation. The Government plan to introduce new legislation to improve safety standards at sports grounds in Northern Ireland and are currently considering the financial implications for clubs.

  Fraud
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the number and type of suspected fraud cases which have been investigated in agencies answerable to Northern Ireland departments by department and year since 1995, indicating how many(a) proved erroneous, (b) required no further action and (c) were proven; and what were the penalties in respect of (c). [55574]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Departments is listed in the table.
  213

  Internal fraud

  Department/year

  Type of fraud

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  DED

  1996

  1 False claim concerning salary cheque

  —

  —

  1 Internally disciplined

  1 Forged invoices

  —

  —

  1 Dismissed

  DFP

  1996

  1 False Travel Claims

  —

  —

  2 Dismissed

  1 Theft

  DHSS

  1995

  1 Misclaiming of fees due

  —

  —

  1 Dismissed

  2 Social Security Benefit irregularities

  —

  —

  1 Dismissed

  1 Suspended without pay

  1996

  1 Misappropriation of Funds

  —

  —

  1 Officer responsible not traced

  1 Overcharging

  —

  —

  1 Police investigation being handled nationally

  2 Social Security Benefit irregularities

  —

  —

  1 Suspended without pay

  1 Still under investigation

  1997

  2 Misappropriation of Funds

  —

  —

  1 Currently at Court

  1 Disciplinary hearing—officer resigned

  3 Misclaiming of fees due

  1

  —

  1 Currently at Court

  1 No criminal offence—referred to disciplinary committee

  1 Understatement of Earnings

  —

  —

  1 Under police investigation

  3 Social Security Benefit irregularities

  —

  —

  1 Dismissed

  2 Still under investigation—1 officer suspended without pay

  1998

  6 Misclaiming of fees due

  1

  —

  3 Under police investigation—

  one of which referred to General Medical Council

  2 Under internal investigation

  1 Misuse of official telephone

  —

  —

  1 Dismissed

  1 Overcharging

  —

  —

  1 Currently under internal investigation

  1 Prescription misuse

  —

  —

  1 Under police investigation

  1 Social Security Benefit irregularities

  —

  —

  1 Dismissed

  DOE

  1995

  1 Theft

  —

  —

  1 Demoted

  1996

  1 Fraudulent travel claims

  —

  —

  1 Dismissed

  8 Theft

  6

  —

  1 Suspended

  1 Dismissed

  1 Collusion with a supplier

  1

  —

  —

  1 Misappropriation of Grant-Aid

  —

  —

  1 Referred to RUC—investigation ongoing

  4 Patronage of contractor

  3

  —

  1 Internal Audit investigation ongoing

  2 Fraudulent activity by water service suppliers

  —

  —

  1 Prosecution

  1 Under consideration

  1997

  5 Theft

  —

  —

  1 Further action pending

  1 Issue of Final Formal Warning

  1 Issue of Final Formal Warning

  1 Dismissed

  2 Cases still under investigation

  1 Misuse of office resources

  —

  1

  DHSS1

  1995–96

  14,731

  SSA benefit fraud cases2

  7,698

  4,714

  2,319

  6 Prison sentences

  39 Suspended sentences

  550 Fines imposed

  153 Community Service or Conditional Discharge

  1996–97

  12,440 SSA benefit fraud cases2

  6,321

  4,877

  1,242

  6 Prison sentences

  29 Suspended sentences

  387 Fines imposed

  153 Community Service or Conditional Discharge

  1997–98

  4,314 Working & Claiming

  5,971

  4,565

  1,089

  901 Living together as husband & wife

  4 Prison sentences

  6,410 Other2

  47 Suspended sentences

  313 Fines imposed

  11,625

  107 Community Service or Conditional Discharge

  1998–99

  1,690 Working & Claiming

  2,256

  2,014

  515

  314 Living together as husband & wife

  4 Suspended sentences

  2,781 Other2

  41 Fines imposed

  4,785

  43 Community Service or Conditional Discharge

  1997

  87 Fraudulent rates claims by the public

  —

  47

  10 Cases referred to Fraud and Prosecution Branch, DHSS 30 Resolved internally by Rate Collection Agency

  1 External fraud relates to fraud by Social Security Agency customers. These statistics are held on a tax year basis.

  2 No breakdown available

  3 The number of proven cases does not equal the number of cases on which legal proceedings are taken because not all cases are suitable for prosecution. In cases where fraud has been proven (whether or not legal proceedings have been pursued) action is normally taken to seek recovery of the overpayment.

  Punishment Beatings and Shootings
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings have taken place in Northern Ireland since 1 January; and how many of these the RUC has attributed to (i) Irish Republican and (ii) Loyalist terrorist organisations. [54761]

  Mr. Ingram
  From 1 January to 30 September 1998 there have been 58 paramilitary style shootings, 27 attributed to Loyalist groups and 31 attributed to Republican groups. There have been 107 paramilitary style assaults, 67 by Loyalists and 40 by Republicans.

  Schools (Newtownards)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what areas of Victoria Primary School in Newtownards are not being used; what is the reason; and if he will make a statement. [56780]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I understand from the South Eastern Education and Library Board that the assembly hall at Victoria Primary school has been closed because of structural defects. The Board has given approval for the structural upgrading of the hall and the replacement of its windows. Tenders are about to be sought and work should commence in the near future. When work is complete the hall will be re-opened.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are to replace Castle Gardens Primary School in Newtownards; what is the timetable for such a proposal; and if he will make a statement. [56779]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The South-Eastern Education and Library Board proposes to replace Castle Gardens Primary School on a new site on the Bowtown Road. Planning for this is at an advanced stage and the school will be considered for a place in next year's capital programme in light of the resources available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Payments
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the comparative rates of hill livestock compensatory payments in the United Kingdom and each other member state of the European Union, expressed in terms of ecus per livestock units. [56908]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 October 1998]: The information requested is not available in up to date form. The European Commission has previously provided the following crude data on the average amount of compensatory allowance paid in 1994:

  ecu

  EU Member State

  Average amount of less favoured area compensatory allowance per livestock unit

  Belgium

  85

  Denmark

  n/a

  Germany

  93

  Greece

  61

  Spain

  36

  216

  ecu

  EU Member State

  Average amount of less favoured area compensatory allowance per livestock unit

  France

  70

  Ireland

  88

  Italy

  57

  Luxembourg

  113

  Netherlands

  104

  Portugal

  54

  United Kingdom

  47

  n/a = not applicable

  Source:

  European Commission working document

  It is up to each member state to determine the rates which are appropriate to its own circumstances and the precise conditions which may attach to these payments. The EU legislation requires that the payment must reflect the degree of permanent natural handicap which is found to exist in the Less Favoured Areas.

  BSE
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library the correspondence between his Department and Dr. Anthony Parish of the University of East Anglia in relation to BSE and toxic reactions to pesticide/insecticide chemicals. [55541]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is not normal practice for the Ministry to place in the Library correspondence between this Department and a private individual and I am not prepared to set such a precedent in respect of Dr. Parish. If Dr. Parish wishes to publish his theory on the origins of BSE, he should submit it to a journal which publishes that type of material.

  Banned Antibiotics
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his Danish counterpart concerning the decision of the Danish Government to ban the use in animals of virginiamycin; and if he will make a statement. [56273]

  Mr. Rooker
  At the October Agriculture Council meeting, which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Minister, Denmark presented a paper on antimicrobial resistance, which reflected the conclusions of a conference of Chief Medical Officers of the EU in Copenhagen in September. The Minister was represented by the Chief Executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Copenhagen Conference was also attended by two members of the Veterinary Products Committee, which advises the Government on veterinary medicines and zootechnical feed additives, including growth promoters.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his Swedish counterpart concerning the decision by the Swedish Government in 1986 to ban the use of antibiotics in animals when used as growth promoters; what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the ban; and if he will make a statement. [56272]
  217
  Mr. Rooker
  The matter was discussed at a meeting between my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Swedish Minister on 19 October. The United Kingdom was represented at a conference in Stockholm in September on "The Swedish Model of Animal Production" by the Chief Executive of Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Chairman of the independent, scientific Veterinary Products Committee which advises the Government on veterinary medicines and zootechnical feed additives, including growth promoters.

  Industry figures indicate that the use of antibiotic growth promoters saves about 2.25 million tonnes of animal feed in the European Union each year.

  Public Analyst Arrangements
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the review of Public Analyst arrangements in England and Wales to be completed. [57227]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Chairman of the Review Group has now submitted its report to me. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and will be sent to those who made submissions to the Group. It will also be made available on the Ministry's web site. I am grateful to the Chairman and members of the Group for the timely completion of their review. The Government will need to give careful consideration to the large number of detailed recommendations and decide how to carry them forward in consultation with the other relevant bodies.

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

Lord Bragg
Melvyn Bragg, Esquire, having been created Baron Bragg, of Wigton in the County of Cumbria, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Castle of Blackburn and the Baroness Jay of Paddington, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Lindsay of Birker—Took the Oath.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to attend the opening of the new European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on Tuesday 3rd November and will address a meeting of the American College of Trial Lawyers in Rome on Wednesday 4th November, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Kazakhstan
2.44 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reaction to the speech by the President of Kazakhstan on 30th September to the people of that country and what practical measures they could support in relation to that speech.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome President Nazarbaev's public commitment to democratic, economic and civil reform in Kazakhstan. We note that presidential elections have now been called for January 1999. We hope that they will be free and fair. We welcome the fact that the Kazakh authorities plan to invite international observers. We expect to co-operate with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in monitoring the elections.
The United Kingdom supports Kazakhstan's reform efforts, for example, through the Department for International Development's Know-How Fund. We also support multilateral efforts to strengthen civil society in
1908
Kazakhstan through the activities of the European Union and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, Kazakhstan, together with all countries in central Asia, is set to become extremely important to this country. I welcome the Minister's support for the appointment of election monitors to review the process. Will she undertake to look at the matter again in order to ensure that there is sufficient ECGD coverage to accommodate Britain's business community and determine whether British specialists can be mobilised to assist in two of the world's grimmest social and environmental disasters, that of the Aral Sea and the Semipalantinsk nuclear testing region?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his welcome of my Answer. The Foreign Secretary has said that this part of the world represents an important development. He made that point in the context of the comprehensive spending review. The noble Viscount is right in saying that trade is a key component of our relationship with Kazakhstan. In 1997, our exports increased by 60 per cent. over the previous year to some £54 million. Exports in 1998 have already exceeded £60 million, so we hope that the upward trend will continue as the Caspian energy sector develops. Export Credits Guarantee Department cover is available and the exposure ceiling was doubled last year. I hope that that is encouraging.
The noble Viscount raised important questions about the Aral Sea. The Department for International Development and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have been following the disastrous environmental impact of the drying up of the Aral Sea. Two years ago they jointly funded a project in support of the World Bank's Aral Sea programme and more recently funded a self-standing project in Uzbekistan. I hope that the noble Viscount understands that Her Majesty's Government are taking an active role in both those important issues.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's response to the noble Viscount's important Question. The words "practical measures" appear in the Question and my noble friend referred to exports. However, does she agree that if Kazakhstan and similar countries are to prosper both economically and democratically they should be able to export? Therefore, countries such as ours and those in the European Union should not impose restraints on trade. Trade is good for their welfare and it is certainly good for their democracy.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Peston. The issues were raised by the Minister of State, my honourable friend Miss Quin, when she visited Kazakhstan from 6th to 9th October. She made a keynote address to those attending the Kazakhstan international oil and gas exhibition in which she underlined the importance which the United Kingdom attaches to Kazakhstan as a trading partner.

1909
Moreover, we have told the Government of Kazakhstan that they need to create the right conditions to encourage foreign investment; notably, a fair and transparent legal regime. A few weeks ago, my honourable friend the Minister for Trade, Mr. Wilson, wrote to the chairman of the State Investment Committee about some of the specific problems faced by United Kingdom companies in Kazakhstan.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last year members of the Kazakhstan Parliament visited the Inter-Parliamentary Union of this Parliament and that they were all extremely friendly and nice?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that they were extremely friendly and nice and I hope that such exchanges will continue. The Kazakhstan record on democracy in the seven years since independence has been relatively good. However, it is not entirely unblemished. There have been concerns about the conduct of elections and referenda. Opposition parties are permitted. However, there are reports of opposition figures being harassed. I am pleased to receive the report from the noble Baroness, but "friendly and nice" must be reinforced by proper respect for democracy.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I preface my question by declaring that in my capacity as managing director of the Independent Power Corporation, with interests in Kazakhstan, I have responded in writing to the president's speech, as requested by the Kazakh Government. In his address, the President of Kazakhstan called political parties,
"the basic building blocks of democracy".
What support do the Government envisage lending to Kazakhstan in relation to the president's call for outside assistance to educate and train political parties in time for next year's national elections?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the support that the Government are giving is largely through the EU and the OSCE. The European Union programme of technical assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States supports reforms in the sectors of agriculture and agro-industry, structural and institutional reform, and infrastructure development. That includes support for the development of the Kazakh civil service, rural credit improvement and assistance in the fields of privatisation, commercial banking and the development of small and medium-sized enterprises.
The OSCE has recently decided to open a mission in Kazakhstan as part of a strategy to enhance its general presence in central Europe. It is hoped that through those fields it will be possible to concentrate on
1910
activities including election procedures, legislative reform, judicial reform and the very important development of civil society.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that Her Majesty's Government are sincere in their pursuance of the elimination of nuclear weapons?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government make clear in all their bilateral relationships that they are indeed sincere in their pursuance of the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of the Minister's previous answer, is she aware that some of the non-governmental organisations working in Kazakhstan under the European democracy programme are unable to continue their work because of the failure to resolve a problem in relation to the European Human Rights Foundation which was given a contract to continue such work but the contract has still not been concluded after some six months? Will she look into that matter and ask her right honourable friend to raise the issue with the European Commission so that that vital democracy-building work in countries like Kazakhstan can go ahead?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am very happy to look into the question, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, suggests. We look forward to the early establishment of an OSCE office in Kazakhstan. We believe that establishing such an office will help to strengthen civil society and will consolidate democratic change in Kazakhstan.
I should make clear that our embassy constantly monitors the progress of the central Asian states and the progress they are making in the field of democratic and civil reform. We and our EU partners will continue to raise our concerns if we feel that all the respective governments—and that obviously includes the Government of Kazakhstan—are not meeting any of their international obligations in that respect.

UN Human Rights Declaration: 50th Anniversary
2.52 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10th December 1948.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the 50th anniversary is an important opportunity to re-affirm the universal nature of human rights. Five decades on, the declaration remains a common standard of achievement for all nations and all people. We are working closely with the United Nations Association

1911
and other NGOs to mark the anniversary in the United Kingdom. This includes meetings, seminars and events covering the full spectrum of human rights issues.
We have encouraged NGOs to use the 50th anniversary commemorations to stimulate young people's interests in human rights. The Foreign Office has funded information packs for all secondary schools which have been enthusiastically received. We are also organising a conference—human rights in the 21st century—attended by delegates from about 30 countries. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary addressed an Amnesty festival on 16th October at which he announced a number of important new initiatives.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's recognition of the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Why is it that Her Majesty's Government have in substance left the organisation of the celebratory events to the United Nations Association? Again, while I recognise that the Government have made a great contribution to human rights this year by what is shortly to become the Human Rights Act, could not the Government link that with the 50th anniversary? I accept that there is no possibility of bringing the whole Act into force on 10th December, but will the Government consider bringing part of it into force on that date; in particular, what is now Clause 19 on ministerial compatibility statements? Will the Government lay a commencement order before Parliament on 10th December bringing the rest of the Human Rights Act into force as soon as possible, and not later than 1st October?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, what a long supplementary question! The noble Lord raised several issues. This country is celebrating the 50th anniversary in an entirely proper way. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and my honourable friend Mr. Lloyd have signed up to Amnesty's Get Up, Sign Up, campaign. I urge others in your Lordships' House who are so minded to do so. We held a seminar at the FCO attended by NGOs, academics, government officials and private sector representatives at which a full range of human rights issues was discussed. We also welcome a full programme of events being organised by the United Nations. This is an international event and 24 such events are being organised by the United Nations. I am happy to give the noble Lord a list of those.
The noble Lord raises other questions which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised with my honourable friend Mr. Lloyd at a meeting yesterday. Mr. Lloyd was able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that a number of issues are being looked at now. For example, the Government have announced a review of the UK's position under various international instruments.
It is important that the Government have been pursuing those issues and the legislation to which the noble Lord referred. He knows that very well and he knows also that I am in no position today to give an undertaking that it will be brought in on 10th December. I hope that that is not a desperate disappointment to the noble Lord. I hardly think
1912
it is. However, I hope that he will acknowledge that in the reviews to which I have referred the Government are sincere in trying to look at their position in that respect.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, in linking that important anniversary with the Council of Europe, will my noble friend accept that it would be paying tribute to the post-war Labour Government who played such an enormously important part in those developments?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that all the appropriate tributes will be made. I am trying to impress upon your Lordships that an enormous amount of work is under way on human rights. I have referred to the various reviews which are taking place covering the additional ECHR protocol, the UN optional protocols and the individual petition mechanisms under the ICCPR, the convention on elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, and many other protocols which the United Kingdom Government are examining at present.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, while not associating myself with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in his supplementary question, I would like to know what position have the Government taken as regards the formation of a human rights centre in London which is being advanced by Amnesty International in order to give training on the proper respect for human rights, both to people in this country and across the world.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the pre-election consultation paper Bringing Rights Home canvassed views on the establishment of a human rights commission, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware. The Government's priority is to give further effect to ECHR rights in domestic law so that people can enforce those rights in the United Kingdom courts. The establishment of a human rights commission is not, in the Government's view, central to that particular objective.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the clock has reached 15 minutes, which is half-way through Question Time. We must move on.

Internet Trading: Tax Receipts
3 p.m.
Lord Newby Lord Newby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What estimates they have made of the effects on corporate tax receipts of the growth of trading on the Internet.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are examining the effect of the growth of trading on the Internet on corporate and other tax receipts in close consultation with other governments and with the business community. The Organisation

1913
for Economic Co-operation and Development is the key forum in which discussions are taking place and the Government are taking a lead role.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and stress his point that the Government should take a leading role in this. In negotiations through the OECD, will as much priority be placed on ensuring that tax is not avoided as ensuring that we do not find ourselves with double taxation, as has been the case up to now?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one of the principles which came out of the Ottawa Conference earlier this month on OECD was that we should be seeking both to avoid double taxation and to achieve neutrality of taxation. That does not mean that there would need to be any new taxes and there would be no need to have the flat rate "bit tax" which some people have suggested.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify this intriguing Question a bit further? The noble Lord, Lord Newby, used the word "avoided". Is tax avoidance or tax evasion the issue here? As I understand it—much as one may think it deplorable—tax avoidance is perfectly legal and therefore it is peculiar that one would single out the Internet as one specific area in which to try to stop tax avoidance. Alternatively, do the Government suspect that trading via the Internet will lead to the total concealment of income so that there will be actual tax evasion?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are involved both with tax evasion and tax avoidance. We would be involved with tax evasion if there were to be any significant possibility of those trading on the Internet avoiding identifying themselves, either the customer or the supplier. Part of the international negotiation is to that effect. We are involved with tax avoidance if it is possible for anybody legally to slip through the net. That is why the co-operation of the major trading companies within OECD is so important.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if somebody in the United Kingdom buys a piece of software by downloading it from a site in the United States, is that transaction subject to VAT? If so, has any money ever been collected for transactions of that nature?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no. The location of the tax obligation is at the point of supply. The supplier in the United States would be eligible for such sales taxes as are applied in the state or city concerned.

Chile: Relations
3.2 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether recent events will affect the United Kingdom's relations with Chile.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are working hard to make sure that the detention of Senator Pinochet does not affect our wider relations with Chile. The detention is, of course, a matter for the police and the courts. It is not politically motivated. It should not be seen as such—in Chile or anywhere else.
We have very cordial and close working relations with the Government of Chile. We have a shared commitment to free trade and last year our exports went up by 26 per cent. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place yesterday, the Government are determined to prevent these legal proceedings undermining our excellent relations with the democratic Government of Chile.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, particularly her opening words. Is she aware that those of us who have been working for many years—in my case 43—to promote trade negotiations in Chile are absolutely dismayed by what is happening? All that good work is being destroyed at a stroke. Furthermore, the situation is chaotic at either end and made worse by the travel advisory notice.
Is the Minister saying that Her Majesty's Government can do nothing to expedite the early return home of an ancient, sick, long time ex-president of a country which has now had nine years of democracy—still very fragile but very important—and where we are now seen, unfortunately and unjustly, as the villains of the piece? It is through no fault of our own; it is a quarrel between Spain and Chile and we are caught in the middle.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will acknowledge the noble Viscount's great knowledge and expertise in relation to Latin America as a whole. The Government will continue to explain carefully that in Britain it is not politicians who decide who is arrested and who is not. The Government will also continue to explain, calmly and sensibly, that nothing that has happened should undermine our good relations with Chile. Equally, the Government will not undermine the rule of law in this country. The separation of powers between politics and the courts is crucial to the integrity of the rule of law. We cannot interfere with the process currently under legal scrutiny. We know that the Chilean Government have worked hard to promote democracy, trade and good government in Chile. We hope that they will understand that we, as a democracy, cannot intervene in the judicial process.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I admire the answers of my noble friend. But does she agree that there can be

1915
nothing more significant, even the importance of trade—I speak as a former Trade Minister, an outstandingly successful one, of course—than respect for the rule of law? Did my noble friend draw an inference from what the noble Viscount was saying that, in his view, it would be possible to override what appears to be a legal request by simply averting one's gaze from the due process of law? Will my noble friend agree also that it is extremely unhelpful when a former Prime Minister, to whom I gave notice that I might intervene on this Question, says in effect that ideological concerns about the past should be of paramount importance in this regard?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, respects the rule of law as much as any of us. I hope that we will not draw those inferences from what he said. I have explained the position to your Lordships as clearly as I can. This is a judicial, not a political, matter. The police acted on a request from the Spanish authorities for the provisional arrest of Senator Pinochet pending a formal request for extradition. The Government must allow the judicial process to take its course. The noble Viscount, I understand, is concerned about the wider implications in Chile. The Government are willing to listen to the concerns of the Chilean Government and to work hard to limit any damage to bilateral relations. I give that assurance to the noble Viscount as sincerely as he put his Question to me.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, in spite of what the noble Baroness says, the Foreign Secretary said in another place yesterday that there are areas of discretion available to the Home Secretary after due process of law. Can the Minister clarify that statement? Does it mean that those areas of discretion are only available to the Home Secretary after every conceivable legal argument has been heard, given that lawyers and legal actions seem to be crowding in from all over Europe day by day? Does it mean that this problem could persist almost indefinitely? Is not that a frightening prospect, given all the evidence from many shades of opinion in Chile indicating that the settlement under which that country moved towards democracy is in danger of being ripped apart by the situation here?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can only reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, that this is a question for the courts. The noble Lord will know that these matters are being dealt with in court today. He asks specific questions relating to immunity and access by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. If that had really been the point that noble Lords wanted to put forward, they might have tabled a Question which more closely expressed it. Questions of immunity are being looked at today in court and nothing I am prepared to say at the Dispatch Box is going to prejudice that. Senator Pinochet's diplomatic passport did not entitle him to diplomatic immunity. Under the Vienna Convention only members of a permanent diplomatic mission are entitled to diplomatic immunity.
1916
But there are grey areas, which is why this matter is in court today. We shall know what the Lord Chief Justice has said before the end of the afternoon.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the previous Conservative government, like the present Government, was party to the international treaties providing for the trial and conviction of people alleged to have committed crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity, and to the extradition arrangements that would enable such persons to be extradited to a country with a court of competent jurisdiction? Can the Minister say whether there has been any change in this Government's policy compared to that of the previous government, including respecting the rule of law?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that the position is any different. The law remains the same. It is the same now as it was under the previous government. Are the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and other noble Lords really suggesting that we did not go through the due process of law? I imagine that that is precisely what the party opposite would have done and it is what we are doing. The law must take its course over Senator Pinochet or anyone else.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, after the due process of law has been carried through, there is a residual discretion in the Home Secretary as to whether or not any order made by the court should have effect?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. The Home Secretary will consider the formal request which must be certified with the seal of the Spanish Ministry of Justice, against the requirements of the Extradition Act 1989. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is aware of that. My right honourable friend must decide—usually within seven days of receipt of a formal request—whether to issue an authority to proceed. He will consider, among other issues, whether the offences are extradition crimes; whether the request is properly authenticated; whether the offences are of a political character; and whether there are any compassionate circumstances. He does so on every request.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, today I received a letter from a friend telling me how his sister was tortured in a terrible way when General Pinochet was in power. She suffered electric shocks to the most intimate parts of her body. I pay deep respect, of course, to the due processes of the law and to all the answers that the Minister has given, but is it not important that the House should be reminded that terrible things have happened and that people guilty of such matters must be brought before the courts?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I understand why the right reverend Prelate raises these issues. My own view is that we must look very carefully only at the judicial issue before us today. That is

1917
understood by Ministers in Chile. The Foreign Secretary met the Deputy Foreign Minister of Chile on 24th October. He had a telephone conversation with the Foreign Minister of Chile on 17th October. Both conversations were entirely cordial. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, is reassured on those points. Both Chilean Ministers understood that the United Kingdom cannot intervene in a case which is before the courts. I am sorry that that point has not also been taken by the party opposite.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that has been made in another place on Welfare Reform and Uprating of Benefits.

Scotland Bill
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 23 [Power to call for witnesses and documents]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie)The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie) moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 11, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 10 on page 12 and insert ("concerning any subject for which any member of the Scottish Executive has general responsibility.
(1A) Subject to subsection (1B), the Parliament may impose such a requirement on a person outside Scotland only in connection with the discharge by him of—

(a) functions of the Scottish Administration, or

(b) functions of a Scottish public authority or cross-border public authority, or Border rivers functions (within the meaning of section 103(4)), which concern a subject for which any member of the Scottish Executive has general responsibility.

(1B) In relation to the exercise of functions of a Minister of the Crown, the Parliament may not impose such a requirement on—

(a) the Minister of the Crown, or

(b) a person in Crown employment, within the meaning of section 191(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996,

unless the exercise concerns a subject for which any member of the Scottish Executive has general responsibility.
(1C) But the Parliament may not impose such a requirement in pursuance of subsection (1B) in connection with the exercise of functions which are exercisable—

(a) by the Scottish Ministers as well as by a Minister of the Crown, or

(b) by a Minister of the Crown only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, the Scottish Ministers.

(1D) Subsection (1C)(b) does not prevent the Parliament imposing such a requirement in connection with the exercise of functions which do not relate to reserved matters.
(1E) Where all the functions of a body relate to reserved matters, the Parliament may not impose such a requirement on any person in connection with the discharge by him of those functions.
(1F) The Parliament may not impose such a requirement on—

(a) a judge of any court, or

(b) a member of any tribunal").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 101 is one of a group of amendments to which amendments have been tabled by the Opposition. In moving it my intention is to speak to Amendments Nos. 104 to 110 and Amendments Nos. 118, 227, 229 and 230. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 103A.
The background to these amendments is that Clause 23 was originally framed in a certain way. Since then the ground on which it was originally built has moved considerably, particularly, for example, because of the amendments concerning the legislative competence of the Parliament, which were made in Committee.
In redrafting the clause to take account of these changes we have tried to state in ordinary language what it is that the Parliament may require someone to give evidence about, while preserving the various limitations to the Parliament's powers which are included in the clause as it presently stands.
The key alteration here is that we propose to replace references to "devolved matters" and,
"other matters in relation to which functions are exercisable by the Scottish Ministers"
with a reference to giving evidence or producing documents,
"concerning any subject for which any member of the Scottish Parliament has general responsibility".
We think that it is appropriate in this context to use, so far as possible, language which can be given its ordinary meaning, rather than tying the provision to the complexities of "matters", "relating to" and so on.
It is intended that this new formulation will cover what was previously covered, such as functions that are conferred on Scottish Ministers under or by virtue of Clauses 49, 59, 85 and 103, the retained functions of the Lord Advocate and functions of the First Minister. It is also intended to cover areas where the Scottish administration operate but where the Scottish Ministers may have no functions, simply a general overall responsibility.
In doing away with the reference to "devolved matters" we decided that it would not be right to tie a new definition entirely to functions. For example, in the field of health there are large areas of activity where Ministers' specific functions, as such, are limited, as matters stand, to making appointments to the bodies, which exercise direct responsibility for the delivery of services. We would not want there to be any room to argue that the Parliament's powers to hold inquiries into health issues was limited to the narrow "function" of making appointments. It should be able to investigate

1919
such issues, without facing artificial constraints. Similar issues could arise in areas where local authorities are responsible for the actual delivery of services.
In other words, the wording of the new provision is simply framed to avoid difficulties where it is clear that a particular subject falls within the responsibility of the Scottish administration, but where there may be scope for arguments as to what extent Ministers exercise actual functions in relation to it under existing legislation. Without this general construction, the Parliament could be hampered in the extent to which it is able to conduct effective inquiries into subjects which are clearly devolved. That was not a risk under the previous drafting, which included a general reference to "devolved matters".
I hope that it will help the House if I describe in some detail how the limitations on the parliament's power have been redrafted. I shall deal first with the provisions as regards persons outside Scotland. For those outside Scotland, the parliament can only impose a requirement in connection with a person's discharge of functions of the Scottish administration, or functions of a Scottish public authority or cross-border public authority, or Borders rivers functions, where those functions concern a subject for which any member of the Scottish executive has general responsibility. So, for example, a representative of a cross-border public authority can be summoned only in connection with the functions of that body relating to devolved matters, because only those functions concern a subject for which a member of the Scottish executive has general responsibility. I hope that noble Lords will agree that that reformulation is a sensible recasting of what was already there in subsection (3) of the present clause.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 101A and 102. The Opposition's Amendment No. 102 seeks to delete the word "general" from general responsibility in subsection (1A)(b) of the new clause, which is about imposing requirements on persons outside Scotland, in particular in connection with the discharge of functions of Scottish public authorities and cross-border authorities. The Opposition's Amendment No. 101A seems to cover similar ground.
I have already explained why we have adopted the new phrase which may be causing noble Lords opposite a certain amount of concern. The word "general" is intentionally included in the drafting to reduce the scope for technical debates about the extent to which a particular issue is or is not the responsibility of Scottish ministers. We think that if we accepted those amendments, the intended position would be less clear. That is why we feel unable to do so.
I turn now to the matter of Ministers of the Crown under this new provision. The parliament will have very limited powers to impose a requirement to give evidence on Ministers of the Crown and their civil servants. The relevant provisions are set out in the proposed new subsections (1B) to (1D).
Again, the intention has been to restate, and where possible clarify, what is already in the clause. In relation to the exercise of ministerial functions, a Minister of the Crown or civil servant may only be called to answer for
1920
the exercise of such a function in so far as the exercise of that function concerns a subject for which any member of the executive has general responsibility.
The main example of this once more concerns cross-border public authorities. Noble Lords will recall that functions in relation to such authorities do not transfer automatically to Scottish ministers, but those bodies will exercise functions in relation to devolved matters and it is right that the parliament should be able to require a Minister of the Crown or his civil servants to give evidence in relation to his ministerial functions in connection with that authority where that concerns a devolved matter; in other words, a matter concerning which a member of the Scottish executive has general responsibility.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 103B and 103D. As before, where a function is exercisable by Scottish ministers as well as by Ministers of the Crown; for example, by virtue of Clause 52, the parliament cannot require a Minister of the Crown to give evidence; nor can it do so merely because the Minister exercises a function with the agreement of, or after consultation with, Scottish ministers; for example, because of a provision made in an order under Clause 59(1)(c). This point was covered previously by Clause 23(5)(b) and with the redrafting, the new subsection (1D) is needed to preserve the effect of that previous paragraph. I hope that, again, this provides some reassurance in relation to Amendments Nos. 103B and 103D.
Amendment No. 103E seeks to delete new subsection (1E). Persons discharging functions of bodies, all the functions of which relate to reserved matters, may not be summoned in relation to those functions. That simply restates the provision originally at Clause 23(6)(a), but brings the language into line with that used elsewhere in the Bill.
The protection for judges and members of tribunals is retained. Amendment No. 227, to which I shall return in a moment, provides a definition of "tribunal" for all purposes in the Act, which allows the specific reference to tribunals,
"which exercise the judicial power of the state",
originally in Clause 23(6)(c) to be omitted. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is not in his place because noble Lords will remember that he was concerned about that point in Committee. I believe that we have now addressed that.
I hope that this reassures the House that what are, I freely admit, complex provisions have not been substantially altered but, as far as possible, made clearer and more compatible with drafting elsewhere in the Bill.
Amendment No. 227 raises a slightly different point. It reflects a point raised in Committee that, although "tribunal" is defined for the purposes of this clause, it is not defined in other contexts in the Bill, most notably in Schedule 6 but also, for example, in Clauses 93 and 95. We think that "tribunal" ought to have a consistent

1921
definition throughout the Bill. In the Human Rights Bill, "tribunal" is defined as,
"any tribunal in which legal proceedings may be brought",
and we think that that definition is a sensible one to adopt also in this Bill. I hope noble Lords who have raised this issue will feel that that provides a useful clarification.
I am grateful for Amendment No. 103A. The particular purpose behind the special protection given to Ministers of the Crown in Clause 23(1B) is to avoid the problem of "double accountability"; in other words, the risk that individuals will find themselves answerable to two different parliaments at once. The proposed amendment seeks to extend that protection to those who have in the past been Ministers of the Crown. We are not certain that the amendment is necessary, but we are content to consider the points raised by it and, if necessary, to return at Third Reading with an appropriate amendment.
With that long explanation—I hope that noble Lords will accept that it was unavoidably lengthy—I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, we now come to Amendment No. 101A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 101. I must point out to the House that if Amendment No. 101A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 102.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 101, Amendment No. 101A:
Line 10, leave out from ("which") to end of line 11 and insert ("relate to the exercise of the functions of the Scottish Administration").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 101A, I shall, of course, deal with all the amendments which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has just discussed. I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to him for having explained why this raft of amendments is required. It illustrates yet again the value of an important and complex Bill being considered over a period of months in two separate Chambers. I may be wrong, but I think that some of the amendments that we are considering today seek to amend amendments that were made to the Bill in Committee. It is clear that serious further thought has been given by the Government to the drafting of the Bill. That is to be welcomed because of the importance of this matter for Scotland and, indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom.
I shall read carefully in Hansard what the noble and learned Lord has just said, but in speaking to the amendments perhaps I may illustrate what I understand the position to be. Perhaps in reply the noble and learned Lord will then confirm whether or not I am correct. Amendment No. 101A seeks to delete the words concerning any subject for which any member of the Scottish executive has general responsibility. My
1922
understanding is that the phrase which currently appears in the government amendments is of wider scope than the executive competence, as defined in Clauses 48 to 50 and anything that may be covered by a Section 59 order under Clause 59. Those clauses set out the ministerial functions of Scottish ministers. Some are derived from Clause 49, which is a general transfer of functions; others will derive from other clauses; and yet others will derive from any order made under Clause 59. We have a draft of such an Order in Council available for consideration. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that this term is meant to be broader than that. I should be grateful if he would elaborate, by way of example, what he has in mind.
Another of my amendments seeks to delete the word "general". I have some difficulty in knowing the difference between a member of the Scottish executive having "responsibility" for a subject as opposed to "general responsibility" for a subject. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that it might give rise to unnecessary dispute if the word is taken out. I venture to suggest that if the word remains in there might also be scope for disputes. It would be extremely helpful if that could be clarified before I decide whether or not to press Amendment No. 101A.
Moving on, I am grateful for the further consideration that has been given to Amendment No. 103A, and I will obviously not insist on that.
I remain concerned about the effects of the new subsection (1C) and (1B), to which Amendments Nos. 103 and 103E are directed. If a Minister of the Crown is to be summonable in certain circumstances, the distinctions which are set out in these two new subsections are somewhat artificial and may give rise to a measure of dispute.
I have no difficulty with Amendments Nos. 110 and 118, and the other amendment to which I have spoken, and I am content that they should be added to the Bill at this stage. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord replies I should be grateful if he could tell the House exactly how the use of the word "general" will clarify the functions to which the clause refers. This will be very important. It will be a question of whether a request is valid or not. The meaning is crucial. Will the noble and learned Lord attempt to tell us where "general responsibility" begins and ends and what it actually means? It is very important.
It is quite difficult to follow the government amendments. Perhaps on another occasion it might be possible to remove a larger part of the Bill and put the re-written part in as a whole amendment. It would be easier for a lay person like myself to follow what is happening. As I understand it, the clause is being rewritten in two clauses. It is difficult to follow how it is done. I ask that as a subsidiary question, but the noble and learned Lord might take it on board for the sake of

1923
those of us who have some difficulty in following detailed, technical amendments. My specific question is about the word "general".
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, these government amendments remove a chunk of the Bill and replace it with, I believe, words of greater clarity. The power to call for witnesses and documents has to be mentioned in this Bill because of the statutory nature of the parliament. Obviously the Parliament at Westminster has these powers, but they are not written down for well-known reasons. The replacement words in the amendments are clearer and are in more readable English. These powers are important to the work and ability of the Scottish parliament.
As to Amendment No. 110, it is a useful amendment which attempts to clarify the meaning of the clause. I approve of that, particularly as the Bill is specifying how an offence may be committed. Absolute clarity should be attempted in such circumstances. The court will find this helpful, particularly as such a prosecution might have a political context. Such a quasi-political trial will attract attention and it will therefore be helpful if the subjects specified in the notice are very clear and all encompassing. It will be important that the accused should have acted deliberately and not by accident. It would be disastrous if the first prosecutions under this clause were to founder on points of legal definition. These government amendments can be supported.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Carnegy in seeking further elucidation of what is meant by "general responsibility". I have in mind the issue of agriculture. I should have thought that the individual citizen in Scotland would believe that agriculture would fall within the remit of this Scottish parliament. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, indicated to us in a very interesting speech at Committee stage, the whole matter of agriculture as it is affected by the common agricultural policy is not to be within the purview of the Scottish parliament but is to fall within that reservation described as "foreign affairs".
I am confused. If agriculture is generally within the responsibility of the Scottish parliament, is this a route whereby it would become open to members of the Scottish parliament to make inquiries about matters relating to the common agricultural policy? As I understood the noble Lord's explanation at Committee stage, that would not properly be for the Scottish parliament but for Scottish MPs to pursue here in the Westminster Parliament.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like briefly to follow up the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, who referred to the complicated situation created by the government amendments. I sympathise with my noble friends on the Front Bench who say that they have to make amendments to those amendments. That makes the matter even more complicated. It would have been so much better on this occasion to ask your Lordships to approve leaving out Clause 23 and substituting a completely redrafted new
1924
clause. Rather than pursue these detailed matters now, it might be very much better if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would agree to do that. It would simplify matters and, at the next stage, we could have a much more rational consideration of the whole matter.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wish to raise one point on Amendment No. 109, in which Clause 23 is divided into two parts. I am perfectly happy with subsections (8) and (9) going into another clause. Under subsection (8), a requirement under the section "Power to call for witnesses and documents" is imposed on the Clerk to give the person in question notice in writing. That is fair enough. Subsection (9) states how that notice should be sent—by registered post, and so on. But subsection (10) still deals with that person, stating:
"A person is not obliged under this section to answer any question or produce any document which he would he entitled to refuse to answer or produce in proceedings in a court in Scotland".
That belongs to subsections (8) and (9) and not in the other part of the clause. When I looked at this rather complicated group of amendments, I felt that subsection (10) should be in what will turn out to be the smaller of the two clauses.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, is clearly a drafting issue which we could certainly consider and, if necessary, rearrange for Third Reading. Having said that, I am not giving a guarantee that that would be the outcome of such consideration.
I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the way in which the amendments have been brought forward. I can only apologise if that has caused inconvenience to the House. Certainly, it is a matter which we can consider at any future stage should we be in a similar position with another Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, proposes that we withdraw the amendments and come back with them at Third Reading. I have given brief consideration to that matter but, on reflection, I think it preferable to proceed with the amendments at this stage. By the time we reach Third Reading noble Lords will have had time to reflect on the amendments. If there are drafting issues, or issues which are appropriate for Third Reading, that might be the way to proceed.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, asked about the general responsibilities. In my initial outline of the amendments I sought to explain that we were anxious to ensure that the parliament was not unduly restricted in matters which it could consider in this way. I used the example of health. I specifically sought examples because it is often helpful to point to an example. I considered health quite a good example illustrating how the responsibility of the parliament might well be very restricted in connection with making appointments to certain bodies and the bodies themselves carrying out the delivery of the services. In that situation we think it appropriate that the parliament should be able to address health issues and not confine itself only to appointments to boards, trusts and so on. That is the reasoning behind the use of a general approach.

1925
I understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that by putting in the word "general" there may be disputes as to whether a matter comes within the general responsibility. That may be an easier question to answer. The present wording will give effect to the intention of the Bill in allowing the parliament to deal with matters which have been devolved. That is preferable to having a far too restrictive definition which would deny the parliament the opportunity to deal with such matters.
Perhaps I may move on to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. Agriculture is devolved, so that would be a general responsibility of the parliament. It could request Scottish ministers to come before it and speak about the common agricultural policy. But the common agricultural policy is a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament. However, having said that, I certainly expect that the Scottish executive would make representations to the United Kingdom Parliament. It would be appropriate for the Scottish parliament to be able to ask Scottish ministers about their position on the common agricultural policy. Of course, the parliament could not refuse to implement the common agricultural policy, but it is clearly a matter which it could debate.
With those explanations, I hope I have assisted noble Lords to understand what we are about in this clause.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. His further remarks confirm my initial impression that the amendments are designed to broaden the scope of the work which takes place before committees of the parliament and the parliament itself without in any sense increasing the statutory functions of the executive or the parliament. In that respect, the amendments fall to be welcomed. Most of us are united in the view that the parliament should work as successfully as possible. The elimination of any artificial limitations on its work is to be welcomed. I therefore do not insist on my Amendment No. 101A to Amendment No. 101.
Amendment No. 101A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 101, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 102 to 103E not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 101 agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendments Nos. 104 to 108:
Page 12, line 12, leave out ("That power may be exercised") and insert ("Such a requirement may be imposed").
Page 12, line 15, leave out ("The Clerk shall give") and insert ("A requirement under section (Power to call for witnesses and documents) shall be imposed by the Clerk giving").
Page 12, line 18, leave out ("matters relating to") and insert ("subjects concerning").
Page 12, line 20, leave out from ("particular") to end of line 21 and insert ("subjects concerning which they are required").
Page 12, line 34, leave out ("relating to") and insert ("concerning").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on welfare reform, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Welfare Reform and Uprating of Benefits
3.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement given in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Statement reads as follows:
"With your permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to set out the next phase of the Government's plans to reform the welfare state and the annual uprating of benefits. We came to power with two huge challenges—to raise standards in education and to reform the welfare state. Today we rise to the challenge of welfare reform. Today we put words into action.
"Welfare reform is essential, because many people are poorer than they need be. Many are dependent on benefits when they need not be; and others are neglected when they should not be. Our central objective is to provide work for those who can and security for those who cannot. Our plans will be based on our belief in fairness, will give greatest help to those with the greatest needs and will make sure that benefits only go to those who are entitled to them.
"All reforms will be undertaken after consultation. The vast majority supported the principles and success measures set out in the Green Paper. I am happy to reaffirm them today. What I announce today will be the first of a series of announcements that will form the basis of legislation during this Parliament beginning early next year.
"Legislation will take effect over a number of years. All existing claimants who are eligible for their benefits when the changes are introduced will be protected.
"Today we are publishing three documents showing how we are putting principles into practice. The first is a document that shows what we have done so far on welfare reform—the New Deal, childcare, the working families tax credit—the principles that guide that reform and the new measures that we are planning.
"The second document sets out our plans for a single gateway, a 'something for something' deal for those out of work that will change the culture of the welfare state. The third is a consultation document on our plans to reform disability benefits to give more help to those in greatest need and to tackle the abuses in the current system.
"First, the benefits uprating. Today I can announce the largest ever increase in child benefit. As a result of the uprating from next April child benefit will rise by £2.95 to £14.40 a week. That represents real security for our children provided by this Government.
"Today I can announce, too, new help for the poorest pensioners with the introduction of a minimum income guarantee. The poorest pensioners will get a minimum of £75 a week. Pensioner couples will receive £116.60. Again, that means real security for today's pensioners from this Government.
"Most national insurance benefits will rise by the retail prices index—3.2 per cent. Means-tested benefits will generally increase by 2.1 per cent. in the normal way. I have placed the details of the uprating of benefits in the Vote Office.
"I turn to our plans for a single gateway to the benefit system for everyone of working age. When I looked at the current way the DSS hands out money I was amazed to learn that people can claim benefits without even having to turn up for an interview, without being given any help finding work. That will all change. We have created new opportunities for people to work: £195 million for the New Deal for disabled people; £190 million for national introduction of the New Deal for Lone Parents; and the first ever national childcare strategy. We are making sure work pays through the new minimum wage and the working families tax credit.
"We believe that in return it is only reasonable that people of working age—lone parents, the unemployed and people claiming incapacity benefits—should be required to attend an interview to discuss their options for work. There will, of course, be people such as the terminally ill for whom an interview would clearly be inappropriate and the rule will not apply.
"We are not forcing people to work. The interview will give real opportunities to people written off by the system. It will create a fundamental change in culture. People will no longer ask of the system, 'What can you do for me?' but, 'What can I do to help myself?'
"We will improve the quality of advice we give as we learn from the New Deal. We will proceed carefully, starting with pilots. The full scheme will be in place in April 2000.
"Now we turn to disability benefits. Here, too, we aim to provide work for those who can and security for those who cannot. When the severely disabled are not getting the help they need, when one million disabled people say that they want to work but are not given the chance and when one quarter of men over 60 are on incapacity benefit because the last government used it as a way of hiding the unemployment figures, we know that the system needs change.
"We promised in the Green Paper that disabled people should get the support they need to lead a fulfilling life with dignity. That is what we will do. First, the foundation for all that we do is an unshakeable commitment to comprehensive civil
1928
rights for disabled people to ensure that they are respected not just in the work place but in all areas of life.
"We are doing more. Today I can announce a £30 million programme of new help for disabled people seeking work, extra to the New Deal. But we also want to improve disability benefits. Disabled people with the greatest needs are not getting the support they need; others are receiving support that they should not. People disabled young in life with no hope of work get so little help through their severe disablement allowance that 70 per cent. of them have to claim income support. Disabled people on low incomes needing day and night care do not get enough help to meet their extra needs.
"Young children with little mobility receive no recognition from the system. At the same time, many of the claims to disability living allowance are not always supported by medical evidence. Some people have been awarded benefit for life even though they have conditions which are expected to improve.
"Today we set out for consultation proposals to provide more help to the most severely disabled people in greatest need and action to make sure that disability benefits go to the right people.
"First, we propose for new claimants to change the system of support to congenitally disabled people and others disabled young in life so that they get greater help. Those aged over 20 can already qualify for incapacity benefit if they have worked or, alternatively, for income support. In the future, severe disablement allowance (SDA) will no longer be available to them. However, many young people disabled before they were 20 have little hope of work. Today I can announce that we will therefore give them the biggest ever rise in support with an extra £25 a week in benefit.
"We propose a fundamental reform to incapacity benefit for future claimants only. The benefit is meant to be for people who are unable to work. Yet the number of claimants has risen threefold over the past 20 years, a time when the nation's health has been improving. But we are concerned that the benefit is becoming abused as an enhanced early retirement subsidy.
"For future claimants we will discourage the use of IB as an early retirement subsidy. People who have a private pension or health insurance payment of more than £50 will receive less support. Every pound of private income they have in excess of the £50 limit will reduce their benefit by 50p. Also, for future claimants we will restore IB to its original purpose as an insurance benefit for people who have worked. Too often it has been abused as a more generous form of support by the long term unemployed.
"We will strengthen the link between the work and benefit. Only people who have worked and paid recent contributions before the claim will be eligible for benefit. We will reform the all work test so that those who claim benefits have to give evidence of their work prospects. This will give information of the work disabled people can do.
"In addition we want to improve the provision for disabled people with the greatest needs. We will provide real security for the poorest disabled people with the highest care costs. Today I can announce a disability income guarantee which will give £129 a week to a single person and £169 to a couple. This guarantee will be extended to three and four year-olds so that a couple with one child on income support and disability living allowance with the highest care needs will get at least £199 a week.
"We will also extend the higher rate of DLA mobility component, worth an extra £35 a week, to all three and four year-old severely disabled children.
"The benefit integrity project which we inherited from the last government failed. It caused a lot of anxiety to disabled people. We will cancel the project. In its place we will put in a new system for reviewing claims to DLA and AA that is both fairer and more sensitive. It will work in the interests of disabled people. These changes will generate three-quarters of a billion pounds in long-term savings. But even with these changes, real terms spending on disabled people will continue to rise in the long run. These reforms do not affect the CSR plans announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in July.
"It is quite right that as our society gets wealthier the amount we spend on the most vulnerable should increase. But benefits must go to those for whom they were intended—to give most help to those in the greatest need—and must be affordable.
"The structural changes announced today will deliver significant savings over the longer run. But they do so by ensuring that greatest help goes to those in greatest need, and that benefits go to those for whom they were intended—work for those who can; security for those who cannot.
"Today, for the first time this Government will provide real security and record levels of child benefit. That is good news for those out of work who will be given better advice and opportunities to work, but bad news for those who abuse the system, and bad news for those who try to claim benefits they are not entitled to be on.
"Today this Government show a determination to modernise the welfare state and reshape it for today's world, so that it provides opportunities for all those who want to work, and delivers security to all those who need it.".
My Lords, I commend this Statement to the House.
4 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. In the Department of Social Security, Secretaries of State come and go, Ministers of State come and go, but the noble Baroness remains. For that we must be grateful because the complexity of these matters is immense. The expertise which the noble Baroness brings to the Front Bench is therefore greatly to be welcomed. I think all of us appreciate that. It is
1930
rather regrettable that the Statement has been made in the other place and in this House but appeared in large measure on page 2 of the Evening Standard ahead of that. That is typical of the way in which the department seems to leak badly. That is to be regretted.
I shall try to put this Statement in context. A crucial feature of the Government's whole plan is to reduce the amount spent on social security and to spend that money on health and education. When I raised this matter last week with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, he said that the Government proposed to decrease the proportion of public expenditure spent on welfare rather than to decrease the absolute amount. I find it difficult to discover any statement to that effect. The statements made by the present Prime Minister before the election clearly implied there would be a cut in the absolute amount. Indeed the Labour Party manifesto gave the same impression. What is the overall effect of what is now proposed? Is it still the Government's intention that the social security budget as a whole should be cut both in absolute terms and as a proportion of national income? We are to have a lower rate of economic growth which may affect that issue. We should be given a clear answer to that point to put this Statement in context.
The present Secretary of State for Social Security carried out the comprehensive spending review when he was Chief Secretary. We were told that the plans for the next three years were set in concrete, whereas the present Government say they have planned ahead for three years but there is a degree of flexibility. If that is so, it is not now at all clear how the Secretary of State for Social Security will change the budgets that he said were set in concrete. The Statement is remarkable in that it states the reforms will not affect the comprehensive spending review plans announced by the Chancellor. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either there are changes in public expenditure, or there are not. They must presumably affect the comprehensive spending review plans.
Having said that, we of course welcome the general uprating as regards specific improvements in disability benefits and so on. Nonetheless, we shall need to consider carefully the structural changes which are proposed. We are told that there will be pilot schemes to test the changes and if it is felt that the pilots have been successful, the changes will be adopted nationally. However, the pilot scheme to test the lone parent proposal was extremely disappointing. Yet the Government are still going ahead with it. That casts some doubt as to whether pilot schemes are being operated in the way they should be operated.
The proposal for a single gateway is something which your Lordships will need to consider further. However, I cannot but remark that that builds on the basic jobseekers approach which the previous government introduced, and which at the time was heavily criticised by the then opposition. Nonetheless we shall need to consider carefully the single gateway proposal. We have not had an opportunity to examine the relevant document in any detail.
The noble Baroness lays much stress on protecting the position of existing claimants but not on protecting the position of existing contributors. Ever since the time of Beveridge we have had for many years a system where you contribute and in return for those contributions you receive benefits. However, since they came into power, the Government have increasingly undermined that contributory principle. They have undermined the idea that you pay contributions and then receive certain benefits as of right. A new contract for welfare: Support for Disabled People states, strangely, at paragraph 20,
"At present, people who have been unemployed and getting credits can qualify for Incapacity Benefit on the basis of contributions paid many years ago. We propose to change this so that entitlement to Incapacity Benefit requires contributions to have been paid more recently".
Will the noble Baroness tell us why the earlier contributions are now, apparently, to be regarded as worthless, because those who paid them presumably expected to obtain reasonable benefits in return?
Paragraph 21 relates to incapacity benefit. It is headed,
"introducing a fairer balance between public and private provision".
This afternoon the noble Baroness has told us that some of those who receive incapacity benefit are paid it in addition to what is described as a "reasonable pension". This is the pension paid to those who are in an occupational pension scheme. This group is suffering badly, particularly as regards schemes which have a defined contribution. Those people who are about to retire now are being hit heavily both by the decline in the stock market value of their assets, which determines the total fund, and more particularly by the decline in annuity rates. But we are now told that these people who have suffered from the effects of the Government's policy are now to have that pension reduced, if they receive incapacity benefit, on a basis of 50p for every pound over £50. That cannot encourage prudence. These people have made provision for their old age. Suddenly, out of the blue, with no warning or consultation, their just entitlement will be apparently reduced. That is a quite extraordinary provision to introduce.
Generally speaking, the whole contribution principle has been undermined. The noble Baroness and I have debated this previously in relation to the previous Budget. As regards the minimum guarantee for pensions, some people will receive the pension who have not contributed. We shall need to study the documents carefully in the light of the Statement. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether it is the case that incapacity benefit is being reduced for new claimants, as that is my understanding? I hope she can clarify that point.
These are extremely complex matters. It is difficult to examine them across the Floor of the House on the basis of a Statement that has only just become available. I hope therefore that ahead of the legislation, which as the noble Baroness said, will not be before next year, we can hold a debate in this House and go into these matters in great depth.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in paying personal tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for her work in the Department of Social Security. On these Benches we welcome much of the content of the Statement and the three documents published today. However, I have a number of criticisms and questions.
We welcome the increase in child benefit. It is a particularly valuable benefit, both because of its very high rate of take-up and because of the flexibility that it offers to parents, especially to mothers, who are given either the option of using it to pay for child care while remaining in work or to replace their previous income from work if they wish to stay at home to look after their children. We also welcome the minimum guarantee. However, we should like to know what the difference is between the proposed minimum income guarantee and the present right of poor pensioners to income support. Does that involve something more than a simple re-badging of income support to those of pensionable age?
Turning to the single gateway proposal, one was pleased to note the remarkable generosity of the Government in saying that those who are terminally ill need not apply for an interview! But there are a number of other categories. What about those, for instance, who are within one or two years of reaching retirement age? Do they have to attend an interview with a view to obtaining further jobs—which they are extremely likely at that age to get! What about lone parents with pre-school age children? Let us take the case of a woman deserted by her husband or partner, or whose husband or partner has died, leaving her with three children under five, one of them a baby. I accept that such people will not immediately be required to seek work, but is there any point in even requiring them to attend an interview when the prospect of work will not arise for them for several years? Will there be an opportunity for claimants to ask for a home visit where appropriate—as it will be in the case of the disabled or those people who suffer from agoraphobia or other problems which may make it difficult for them to leave home? Will there be appropriate arrangements for those who have difficulty in speaking English?
What are the sanctions for non-attendance at interviews? They are not spelt out in the Statement; however, I understand from the supporting documents that it is intended that benefits can be withdrawn as a sanction from those who do not attend. I can see that it may be an acceptable sanction for those who are free to work and have no reason to refuse, but what about the position of the single parent? Will such parents be at risk of having benefits withdrawn if they fail to attend an interview, with the consequences that that will have for their children?
Turning to disability benefits, again there is much in the Statement that we welcome. We accept that there have been abuses of incapacity benefit and the increase in the number of those drawing incapacity benefit over the past few years is wholly inexplicable in terms of the health of the nation. We welcome the proposal to

1933
improve help to congenitally disabled people and people who become disabled early in life. However, there are some oddities. The remark in the Statement that the benefit is meant to be for people who will never work is not exactly true. As I understand it, it is meant to be a benefit for people who are unable to work for a significant period of time as a result of disability and therefore applies to people who, let us say, suffer from a long-term disease but one which may well improve in the course of time.
I echo the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that the proposal that people with a private pension or health insurance will lose incapacity support is a dangerous one. It will discourage savings. Furthermore, those who have to take early retirement will—quite apart from what we hope are short-term problems and falls in the stock market—because they are retiring at an early age, have had less opportunity to make contributions, will have fewer years of service and will as a result receive a lower pension than if they had stayed in work until normal retirement age. Therefore, if incapacity benefit is withdrawn they will suffer a double loss.
A cause for great concern is the statement that only those who have worked and paid contributions before making a claim will be eligible for benefit. Looking at the background document, that statement is incomplete. The intention is that incapacity benefit will be available only on the same terms as jobseeker's benefit; namely, to those who have paid at least one year's contributions within the past two years, and for that purpose the contribution credits payable on behalf of the unemployed will not be available. I can understand that approach in relation to jobseeker's benefit, but it seems absolutely wrong that, for instance, someone who has lost his job as a miner, is unemployed for more than a year and then becomes disabled will lose the right to incapacity benefit.
There also seems to be a loophole as regards students. If they are disabled at the age of 20 or more they will not qualify for the severe disablement allowance, since that is limited to those under 20; however, they will not qualify for incapacity benefit because they have no record of contributions.
So while we welcome much of the content of the Statement and will support the Government on many of the proposals, there are many matters that require investigation; indeed, in some cases they do not at present appear acceptable.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first, perhaps I may thank both noble Lords for the generosity of their personal comments. I take them as a generous tribute. I hope that I shall repay them in spades by being as tough-minded, argumentative and forensic as I can manage to be. I am sure that your Lordships would hope for nothing less.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked how we were balancing our expenditure plans with the CSR figures and so on. With his superb Treasury expertise, the noble
1934
Lord will know that average growth in the social security budget over the last Parliament of the previous administration was 4.1 per cent. a year. It is a matter of whether or not family credit is included, but I am taking like for like. Average growth in the social security budget under this Government will be 2.2 per cent. over the lifetime of this Parliament. That is the figure in the CSR; the Chancellor has repeated it; and we confirm it today. That is our expectation and it has not changed. It means that while social security expenditure will continue to grow it will be much less than it would have been under the previous administration. And much of that growth is demographically driven, for good reason: there are more pensioners, they are living longer, and they are entitled to benefit. As a result of the increased expenditure some £13 billion will go to pensioners; £3 billion on child benefit; £2 billion cumulatively to the unemployed and single parents; and something like £10 billion cumulatively over the lifetime of this Parliament to disabled people.
So the difference between us is that we have, so to speak, capped the growth; nonetheless, it will continue in real terms. As I hope the noble Lord will accept, within this package we are also seeking to focus our expenditure on the poorest and those who have the greatest needs, including disabled people.
The noble Lord said that the new deal for lone parents was disappointing. The pilots have so far shown that about 5,000 lone parents have, as a result of this scheme, gone into work or may have had their hours of work increased. Should the same ratio of jobs to interviews continue, about 100,000 lone parents will have the advantage of either an interview, moving into work or working additional hours, which they might not otherwise have done. That must be a worthwhile enterprise. No one on either the Government or the Opposition Benches has told the Government of any other way to help to encourage lone parents to go into work when they feel that the time is right.
The point about the gateway interview is that at the moment too often lone parents do not know what they do not know. There is a real problem for them of not knowing what opportunities for childcare we can offer or what training and education facilities we can offer. In the pilots for the single gateway we seek to ensure that every new claimant will, at the point at which the single parent claims income support for the first time, have an interview at which the income support claims and possibilities in future of a new deal, the right to child maintenance and the like, will all be discussed with them. I do not believe that that would be unreasonably intrusive. Thereafter, the lone parent should be able to make the choice as to what she sees fit for her life, whether she is ready to go back to work now or later. It is for her to choose. We wish to empower her with the information she may not yet have as to what choices, options and opportunities are available for her. I hope that this will be regarded as a real and positive achievement for lone parents.
A further point that the noble Lord made was that we may be protecting claimants but we are undermining the contributory principle. That issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in particular in relation to

1935
unemployed people who have been out of work for a considerable time, who then become disabled and who would not in the future be eligible for incapacity benefit. At the moment, someone could work for five years, be unemployed for 20 and in the 21st year of unemployment receive incapacity benefit. I know that this is reductio ad absurdum, but someone could earn £400 per week for four weeks and then have a right to contributory benefit for the rest of their lives. That cannot be sensible because the incapacity benefit was designed to replace the earnings of someone in work who is forced out of work because of sickness. That was the intent of IB and that is the intent that we are restoring. We are saying that within two years they should be within the labour market: "For two years you may have been out of work, but if you have been out for longer than that it is not reasonable to treat you as though you had been forced out of work recently by sickness or disability". That is the point of the change.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Is it not a period of one year? In order to claim the benefit, you must have a complete contributions record for one of the past two years. So, effectively, it is only a one-year period.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, you must have made contributions within the past two years. However, we will follow up the precise details with the noble Lord. We seek to restore the connection between being in the labour market, being in work and paying national insurance and, when the contingency of sickness or disability unfortunately hits someone, having access to insurance-based benefit. Contrary to what the noble Lord said, what we are doing is reasserting the worth of the connection with the contributory principle rather than undermining it. In my view, over the past that has become far too diluted.
Both noble Lords raised questions as to whether our proposals for the pensions take-up for incapacity benefit were reasonable. We are not reducing people's occupational pensions. We are saying that incapacity benefit was designed as an earnings replacement benefit, not an early retirement benefit. I suggest that, partly as a result of the policies of the previous administration, we all know that many people have left work and gone on to IB as a form of more generous retirement pension. Also, under the previous administration, it was a way of massaging the unemployment figures. That is why one-quarter of all men between the ages of 60 and 64 are on incapacity benefit. That is not what the benefit was originally intended for and the nature of the contributory principle for sickness and disability was not intended to insure against that.
For example, back in 1953 only 28 per cent. of men in full-time work had an occupational pension. Now, something like 85 per cent. of men in full-time work, about 70 per cent. of women in full-time work and a proportion of those in part-time work have access to occupational pensions. The world has changed and it seems not unreasonable to work in partnership with the pension provision that people have so that we are not contributing twice over for the same contingency. If
1936
people receive a generous income from their occupational pension—as has been the case over the past decade—it seems reasonable to ask that it should be taken into account. For example, one-third of all people on IB have an occupational pension worth on average £85, but the top one-third of those with an occupational pension have an occupational pension on average of £181 a week. It seems to me not unreasonable to ask whether such people need the full incapacity benefit, when other people on income support never had a chance to build up that contribution record and therefore would have a much lower incapacity benefit and lower income. That is why we are making these changes.
The noble Lord asked whether incapacity benefit was being reduced for new claimants. No, we are not changing the rates of incapacity benefit, merely the contribution conditions, plus the occupational pensions taper.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked what was the difference between that and the pensions income guarantee. We are giving an extra £5.75 to a single person and about £8 to a couple where they are on income support and receiving the highest rate of DLA and are on disability premium. In other words, we are targeting additional monies worth on average £5 or £8 to those who have severe physical or mental health disabilities and who have severe financial need. That is the group we seek to help.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way again. Is that inclusive of or on top of the uprating of 3.2 per cent. for the national insurance benefits?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as of next April, it will include the uprating. If I have any information different from that, I will write to the noble Lord. He pressed me about interviews and who will be exempt. It is the kind of thing that will come up in discussions as a result of consultation with organisations and groups. For example, someone would not be expected to come to the interview who was terminally ill or who had been recently widowed, or was in poor health or had recently come out of hospital. That includes someone who may be of working age but is nevertheless elderly. That example will be discussed on its merits. Of course, we offer home visits where it is inappropriate for someone to come into the office.
With the interviews, we do not seek to dragoon into work people who are clearly unable to work or who, because of other responsibilities, choose not to work. We are trying to ensure that people know about the opportunities and support available in the system which they are not aware of now. We know that social security remains for so many people territory which baffles them by the degree of its complexity, forms and bureaucracy. By having a face-to-face interview in the office or at

1937
home, we hope to overcome the hurdles people face in understanding the information on the opportunities they want.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, what is the sanction if someone outside the exemptions mentioned fails to turn up?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is a single gateway which is being piloted only for new claimants. Therefore, for new claimants to receive their benefits they will have to have an interview. So, for them, the issue of sanctions almost does not arise. The only claimants for whom it might arise are, for example, the widowed or terminally ill, and we shall respond on a person-to-person, case-by-case basis in the pilots proposed, at the point at which new claimants seek to sign on for the benefit they will have an interview. It may be that the interviewer will suggest that the person comes back at a later stage for further information and so on. But that is the proposal in the gateway. One is talking about 18 months to two years down the road if it is thought sensible to extend these pilots nationwide.
I accept that the Statement and the supporting documents are detailed and complex. I have tried to answer the points raised today by noble Lords as best I can. If I have missed any I shall write to noble Lords.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as a point of order, I know that technically there is no time limit on questions put by Front Bench spokesmen. We are not debating the documents but the Statement. That debate has already taken 30 minutes, and 20 minutes is to be allowed for Back-Benchers. Is it not time that we moved on to Back-Benchers?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are about to do so. However, as this is a major Statement that affects many millions of our fellow citizens I do not believe that it is unreasonable for the House to devote a little time to its implications.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, naturally I am glad the Government do not plan to attack the living standards of disabled people by cutting benefit levels. I welcome also their decisions to scrap the benefit integrity project and to give more help to disabled children and young people, more especially by extending mobility allowance to children aged three to five. That my noble friend shared the concerns felt by many of us in this House about the inhumanities of the benefit integrity project was never in doubt. Is she aware how grateful we are to her today for its demise? Does my noble friend agree that if we are to turn the movement of disabled people from welfare to work from a trickle to a flood urgent action must be taken to make public transport more accessible to them? Does she also agree that it is not tenable to condemn employers for discriminating against disabled jobseekers when, notwithstanding the Disability Discrimination Act, 92.5 per cent. of them are to be allowed to go on
1938
discriminating? Finally, can my noble friend confirm that no disabled person will be forced into work as a condition of receiving benefits and that the changes to severe disablement allowance mean that young people disabled early in their lives will now, for the first time, be floated off means-tested income support?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend, who has done so much for disabled people, is absolutely right to draw our attention to the issues of public transport and employment discrimination. That is precisely why we need strong civil rights and to extend the remit of the existing DDA. My noble friend will be aware of some of the discussions that are taking place on that matter.
My noble friend's second question was whether I could confirm that no disabled person would be forced into work. Yes, my Lords: no disabled person will be forced into work. Thirdly, my noble friend asked me to confirm whether someone who was disabled before the age of 20 would for the first time be floated off income-related (means-tested) benefit and would instead after a year go on to the higher rate of incapacity benefit. I can confirm that for those young people who have never had a chance to enter the labour market and build up contributions, and therefore have had no opportunity to provide for themselves, we shall ensure that after a year they will have the higher rate of benefit, which will give many of them an extra £25 a week and float them off the need ever to claim income support.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, can the Minister clarify one aspect of the practical impact of the single gateway system? I entirely agree with her comment that many people are baffled by the complexity of the forms and bureaucracy of the social security system. The gateway document begins by deploring the confusing array of agencies with which people have to deal, including the Benefits Agency and local authorities. But I am not clear whether it provides any more of a one-stop shop in terms of filling out forms and the exchange of information than the present arrangements. I note that claimants will gain access to information and help about a range of local authority services, including housing benefit, but will they still have to fill out a separate form to be sent back to the local authority, for example, for council tax benefit or housing benefit or will the Benefits agency, if that is the first agency with which they deal, pass on that information? I know that many people fall at this point. They get income support but have not filled out another complex form and returned it for the local authority benefits. That gives rise to all kinds of problems.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I know that the issue that concerns the noble Baroness is the interface between social security benefits and local authority benefits. She will also know that housing benefit is under review at the moment. It may be that specific proposals will be made to make that interface more easily understood or managed. Our hope and expectation is to have a one-stop shop. If and as long as housing benefit remains the responsibility of local

1939
authorities—the noble Baroness should not read anything into that—clearly there needs to be a set of information exchanges based on the IT spine. We need to ensure that we have the computer system in place before we can develop effectively a single spine of information and, as a result, access to the full array of benefits. Like the noble Baroness, as far as possible I want a one-stop shop and one body of information that goes into the system which then triggers the entitlement to an array of benefits. She is absolutely right to say that that is the only way to ensure that people get the benefits to which they are entitled.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I echo the tributes that have been paid to the noble Baroness. I apologise for the quality of my voice. To adopt an old pantomime gag, I must have been drinking out of a damp glass. I congratulate the noble Baroness on the extension of the old-fashioned mobility allowance to three and four year-olds. That is marvellous news. I also congratulate her on the passport to higher incapacity benefit for the under 20s, although I am rather disturbed that it will not take place until 2001. Like the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, MENCAP is delighted about the cancellation of the benefits integrity project. Can the Minister guarantee that those younger disabled people, including learning disabled who stay on at college beyond the age of 20, will not lose out on the transfer to incapacity benefit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's comments and his welcome for the extension of mobility allowance for the first time to small children aged three and four who may be going to nursery school, playgroups or whatever and have real mobility needs. I am delighted that the Government are able to announce today the proposal to introduce that change. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I am also delighted that those who have been born with a severe learning impairment or who have become severely disabled before the age of 20 and can therefore never seek to support themselves will get a more generous and decent level of benefit. The noble Lord asked about a young person, particularly someone with a learning impairment, who might otherwise remain in education for longer and therefore whether the cut-off point at the age of 20 would debar that individual from benefit. This is a real issue. What we seek to do is to ensure that those who cannot enter into the labour market have access to IB. Clearly, if by virtue of a learning impairment a person takes longer to complete his or her full-time education it is difficult to say that that individual should not have access to the benefit. But we need to discuss this matter and consult to see how best to deal with it. It will take time before this emerges in the form of regulations. We shall see what we can do to address the very real issue that has been raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there will be a good number of people on state benefits up and down the country who are absolutely delighted by what the noble Baroness has been able to repeat this afternoon. But does she believe that leopards blush? She has been rightly praised several times this afternoon for her
1940
knowledge of this very intricate subject, but at least in one respect she appears to have changed her views quite dramatically. The Statement praises the Government for being able to make the biggest single increase ever in child benefit. The figure is £2.95, if I have written it down correctly. The noble Baroness will recall—certainly I well remember it—fulminating about the unfairness of child benefit. What has changed? The noble Baroness appears to be confused.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me; I am sure it is my stupidity. I do not understand the point about fulminating against the unfairness of child benefit.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall explain because it will be useful to have an answer. In the past, the noble Baroness has made the point—I agree with her—that child benefit goes to those who need it and are deserving of it and equally to those richer people who are not deserving of it. I précised that remark by talking about the unfairness of child benefit. I repeat my question. What has changed in the Government's thinking?
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the noble Baroness said she believed that over the lifetime of this Parliament the social security budget would rise by 2.2 per cent. a year. That must be an average over the lifetime of the Parliament. Without having read the papers, or having been able to add up even vaguely the figures announced in the Statement, it seems to me that it is an expensive Statement. Is the Minister saying that there will be an increase of 2.2 per cent. this year on the social security budget or that the 2.2 per cent. will be averaged out per year over the lifetime of the Parliament?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure whether we are at cross purposes. It may help if I reflect on what the noble Lord says.
I sought to say that under this Government, as has been made clear in the CSR, our expected intent—we have no reason to think that we would depart from it—and our forecast therefore, is that social security expenditure will rise on average 2.2 per cent. Whether the figure is 1.3 per cent. or 2.2 per cent. depends on how one counts in the working families tax credit. That is the difference. I said that, within that, the growth is mainly demographically driven; that is, by the growing number of pensioners who, I am glad to say, are living longer. We are therefore cutting the expenditure in which the previous administration was engaged—expenditure on social and economic failure. I refer to the paying of benefits to people who would have liked to work but were unable to do so. That is the main difference in our policies.
The Statement today is not a cuts-led Statement. It would produce savings of only about £25 million a year by the end of this Parliament on a budget of £2,500 million. It is a principle-led one of work for those who can, security for those who cannot; and work relates to new deals, civil rights, minimum wage, and so

1941
on. It is security in terms of the benefits for those who have no access to the labour market and therefore need a decent and proper standard of living.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the Minister concludes that point, can she tell us in absolute terms how much money the Statement adds to the social security budget?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, 2 per cent. per year on £100 billion will be £2 billion.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I very much welcome the Statement, in particular the cancellation of the benefits integrity project which, as the Minister knows, has caused so much distress.
The extension of the mobility allowance to three and four year-olds will be greatly welcomed by parent carers. It is a huge step forward. However, the issue of carers benefits is absent from the Statement. As the noble Baroness knows only too well, the issue of carers' income and benefits is closely related to the issue of disability income. Can she assure me that the question of carers' income will be addressed through the national strategy for carers currently under consideration?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that remark. As noble Lords know, my noble friend will shortly leave her responsibilities with the NCA. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the work she has done for carers who for so many years have been a neglected body. I am delighted to take this opportunity to pay that tribute.
As a result in part of the campaigning work my noble friend undertook, the Prime Minister set up the national carers strategy in which we seek to integrate the work being done within the Department of Health, the DSS and the DfEE. Carers benefits are part of that consideration. However, the strategy has been only recently set up and conclusions are far from being reached.

Scotland Bill
4.44 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 23.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 108A:
Page 12, line 40, at end insert—
("(12) No decision by the Lord Advocate to grant an authorisation to a procurator fiscal under subsection (11) shall be reviewable by any court.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is linked with Amendment No. 111. It returns to an issue which I raised at Committee stage on 21st July of this year. The purpose of the amendments is self-explanatory. When the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General declines to answer a question or to
1942
produce a document to the parliament, or whether a procurator fiscal authorised by the Lord Advocate does so, the decision of the Law Officer should not be reviewed by a court of law. It was part of a theme on which I have spoken on a number of occasions in debates on the Bill: seeking to restrict so far as possible the role of the courts in the affairs of the parliament.
As I explained under the Human Rights Bill (which returns to your Lordships' House on Thursday of this week) for the first time it will be possible for the courts to review decisions of the Lord Advocate on certain issues as to whether or not to prosecute individuals and, if so, on what charges. I accept that that is a necessary consequence of the Bill in the terms in which it will in all probability become law. This was a related issue: to try to limit the role of the courts.
When the matter was debated previously, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate indicated that the question was of some interest to the Government. I understood from what he said that it was a matter to which he would give further consideration. Therefore these amendments are tabled in the hope that, further consideration having taken place, a favourable response might be forthcoming.
I shall be grateful if in reply the noble and learned Lord could clarify one matter. In the definition of devolution issues, sub-paragraph (d) of Part I of Schedule 6 states:
"a question whether a purported or proposed exercise of a function by a member of the Scottish Executive is, or would be, incompatible with any of the Convention rights".
Sub-paragraph (e) states:
"a question whether a failure to act by a member of the Scottish Executive is incompatible with any of the Convention rights".
Am I correct in understanding that the use of that language covers the acts, or failures to act, of the Lord Advocate and the procurator fiscal in the carrying out of the independent functions which the Lord Advocate has as head of the system of criminal prosecution and the system for investigating sudden deaths in Scotland? It appears to me that it does. I refer to Amendment No. 145F which the Government intend to move as an amendment to Clause 53.
I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate understands the reason that I ask the question. If the acts of the Lord Advocate and the procurator fiscal fall within the terms of the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 it will mean that any final decision as to whether or not an action has been in conformity with convention rights, or is compatible with convention rights, will fall to be determined ultimately by the Judicial Council rather than by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House, as opposed to what will happen with other public authorities under the Human Rights Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord observed, at an earlier stage I indicated that I would consider the matter. The Government have done so and I regret that we are unable to accept the amendments, which seek to remove the possibility of

1943
the Lord Advocate facing judicial review where in his judgment a question should not be answered or a document should not be produced to the parliament.
Amendment No. 111 would rule out the possibility of the courts being able to review a decision by the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General to decline to answer a question or to produce a document about a particular criminal case on the ground that he considers that doing so might prejudice the proceedings in that case or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest.
The Government believe that the Bill as drafted strikes the right balance between the independence of the Lord Advocate in exercising his prosecution functions, and the independence which both the courts and Parliament recognise, and his accountability.
I accept that this is a very sensitive area, but, as I have already explained, we really do believe that we could not justify such an absolute bar as the amendment proposes. Nor do we believe that it would be necessary in practice in order to preserve the independence of the law officers. The mere fact that the courts could be asked to reach a judgment on this issue would not in itself undermine the independence of the Lord Advocate. Indeed, in extreme circumstances it might act as a safeguard, a point to which I shall return.
In any case, should such a case arise, I believe that we can expect the courts to be extremely keen to protect the independence of the law officers in reaching any decision, not only because that is the position which the courts adopt at present but also because the Bill recognises the importance of the law officers having the necessary independence of the executive when they are exercising the special functions of prosecutions or investigations of sudden deaths.
Amendment No. 108A relates to procurator fiscal. Clause 23(11) provides that a procurator fiscal is not obliged to answer any question or produce any document relating to the operation of the system of criminal prosecution in any particular case if the Lord Advocate considers that answering a question or producing a document might prejudice criminal proceedings in that case, or otherwise would be contrary to the public interest, and has authorised the procurator fiscal to refuse to answer a question or produce a document. Similar to Amendment No. 111, Amendment No. 108 would prevent any court from reviewing a decision from the Lord Advocate under Clause 23(11).
I have to say that we are not aware of any recent attempts to use the courts to force procurators fiscal to give evidence about the handling of cases. The most recent instance in Scotland of a procurator fiscal giving evidence at judicial proceedings was at the Dunblane fatal accident inquiry. However, in relation to those proceedings, the procurator fiscal depute was authorised by the noble and learned Lord, who was then Lord Advocate, to appear at the proceedings and was given strict guidance in relation to the questions that he should answer. Given this background, we should expect the courts to be reluctant to question the judgments of the Lord Advocate in this area.
1944
Moreover, as I have already suggested, I am not entirely persuaded that the amendment would strengthen the independence of the Lord Advocate. Assuming that the courts would be jealous to guard that independence, it is certainly possible to imagine that it might assist the Lord Advocate if he is able to demonstrate, in the extreme circumstance of his judgment being challenged, that the courts support his view. A future Lord Advocate might yet have cause to rue the day that that possibility was closed off.
I accept that the amendments are well intentioned and raise important matters. However, as I have indicated, I believe that they are unnecessary and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw them.
Finally, perhaps I may deal with a point that the noble and learned Lord raised. The Lord Advocate is a member of the Scottish executive and would be covered by the provisions in Schedule 6, including in respect of his actions as head of the system of criminal prosecution. That is consistent with what I have said hitherto. I hope that in those circumstances the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will interrupt me if I am wrong, but I assume that that covers the actions of procurators fiscal as being officials of a member of the Scottish executive.
The noble and learned Lord rightly said that in the event of such an issue coming before the court, the court would treat it as one of great sensitivity and would seek if at all possible not to interfere with a proper exercise of the discretion of either the Lord Advocate or a procurator fiscal. My concern is to cut off any such court actions at source. It may be that that is unnecessary. Although I find it difficult to imagine that a Lord Advocate would welcome having a particular case reviewed in court, I accept that it is possible some time in the future. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 108A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 109:
Divide Clause 23 into two clauses, the first (Power to call for witnesses and documents) to consist of subsections (1) to (7), (10) and (11) and the second (Witnesses and documents: notice) to consist of subsections (8) and (9).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 109A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 109, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 109 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Witnesses and documents: offences]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 12, line 45, leave out ("relating to the matters") and insert ("concerning the subjects").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Participation of the Scottish Law Officers]:
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Acts of the Scottish Parliament]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 14, line 20, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 22 and insert ("an Act of the Scottish Parliament is not affected by any invalidity in the proceedings of the Parliament leading to its enactment.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before the amendment is agreed to, perhaps I may raise in the Chamber a matter about which I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, at the weekend. I requested that the Government make clear the full intentions of the amendment, in particular what is encompassed by the words "invalidity".
This is an issue on which we have touched from time to time in our discussions and debates on the Bill. On the last day of Committee, when discussing the effects on an Act of the Scottish parliament if it had been passed without standing orders being complied with or in contravention of some particular provision of standing orders, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate indicated that any such challenge would be precluded by Clause 27(5) in its current terms. That subsection is being recast by this provision.
In addition to precluding challenge based on failure to comply with standing orders or some confusion as to the voting that took place, I am interested to know what other matters are covered by the word "invalidity". That is part of the wider issue of Parliamentary privilege with which we shall deal later on in our debates on Report. I am interested to know whether it is the Government's intention that Clause 27(5), as they propose to amend it, would exclude any inquiry by a court as to whether or not Parliament had available to it sufficient material, testimony or evidence which justified it enacting particular statutory provisions in the terms in which they wished. I wish to know also whether there were any circumstances in which it would be competent for the court to go behind the letter of the provision of an Act of the Scottish parliament to see whether it had come into being because of some misapprehension on the members' part as to what was the current state of the law; or the factual position relating to the substance of the provision; or any deception, whether innocent or otherwise, in somebody misleading a Committee which had looked to the Bill before it finally became an Act of the Scottish parliament.
Those are all issues which the courts would refuse to entertain in considering legislation passed by your Lordships' House and another place. Therefore, I seek to inquire of the Government what are the full ramifications of Amendment No. 112.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend in this matter. The rules of order which are bound to be observed and which should be observed in the Scottish parliament will be of no effect if legislation is passed in contravention of those rules.
1946
On many occasions that would not matter very much. It might be a very minor contravention. But rules of order, certainly in another place in our Parliament, provide that in financial matters certain rather rigorous procedures must be followed in order that the financial provisions may be of full effect. I just wonder what would be the result in the Scottish parliament if a rule of order governing a financial matter had not been observed.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I had intended to deal with these matters when we discussed Amendment No. 138. I am happy to deal with them now or when we discuss that amendment but I should prefer not to deal with it on two occasions. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, will indicate whether he wants the explanation now or later.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, if it is convenient, I should like to hear the explanation now.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thought the noble and learned Lord might say that. He is quite correct to say that he wrote to me seeking clarification of the provision in Clause 27(5).
The intention is that that provision should have the effect that an Act of the Scottish parliament may not be challenged on any procedural grounds. In that respect, it is intended to make the position of an Act of the Scottish parliament similar to that of an Act of the Westminster Parliament.
I understand that the position regarding Westminster Acts has been discussed in a number of judicial cases. The effect of those cases is that the validity of a Westminster Act cannot be challenged on the basis of arguments about the legitimacy of, for example, the manner in which an Act has been introduced as a Bill; or what was done previous to its introduction; or what passed in Parliament during the various stages of its progress through the two Houses.
Clause 27(5) is intended to confer similar protection on Acts of the Scottish parliament. Accordingly, the intention is that Clause 27(5) should certainly preclude challenges to the validity of an Act of the Scottish parliament on the basis that standing orders have not been properly followed during the parliamentary passage of that Act as a Bill. However, it is intended that it should preclude also challenges on other procedural grounds where it is suggested that a procedural rule of the parliament has not been followed. Therefore, an Act of the Scottish parliament will therefore be in a different position from subordinate legislation which can be challenged on the basis that the procedure prescribed for making the subordinate legislation has not been complied with. I hope that that gives a range of fairly comprehensive assurances which the noble and learned Lord sought.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I regret to disappoint the Minister. I am not sure that it provides all the safeguards that I am seeking. However, his response has been extremely helpful in that it clarifies the Government's intentions in relation to this

1947
amendment. That will be extremely useful not in relation to Amendment No. 138 but in relation to another amendment which we shall reach next week. Therefore, I am grateful to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Steel of Aikwood Lord Steel of Aikwood moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 14, line 25, at end insert ("in relation to reserved matters").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this refers to Clause 27(7) which at present states:
"This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland".
I wish to add the words "in relation to reserved matters". I am well aware that the Government will tell me that nothing in this legislation prevents this Parliament acting in its sovereign capacity in any way in the future that it so wishes. Indeed, if the Conservative Party were swept to power at the next election it will have the power to introduce legislation to abolish the Scottish parliament and all the work that we have been so painfully putting together. Were they to do that, I am sure that that would lead fairly quickly to the break-up of the United Kingdom. But there is no question that this Westminster Parliament retains absolute power over what happens under the provisions of this Bill.
Having said that, in my view there is no reason to have subsection (7) in the Bill at all. It is entirely unnecessary and otiose. But it is more than that. As worded at present, it is provocative and, indeed, positively offensive because it almost invites this Parliament to meddle in future in the law-making of Scotland on those matters which this Bill devolves to Scotland. That cannot be right. I hope that even if the Government do not accept the amendment or agree to delete subsection (7) altogether from the Bill, they will assure us that it is not intended that this Parliament in future should intervene in matters or attempt to make laws on those issues which we are busy devolving to Edinburgh at present.
It is important to have a clear statement on this because of an exchange which took place in this House on 4th March. It is my understanding that when the parliament is devolved the only residual Scottish executive responsibility here will be through the Secretary of State for Scotland whose post continues. Therefore, I assume that there will have to be some opportunity for Members of the other place to question the Secretary of State for Scotland on his responsibilities because he will be a Minister of the Crown and answerable to this Parliament. Clearly, Scottish Question Time, as we have known it up to now, will change. Almost all of the matters for which the Secretary of State is at present responsible will be devolved, and therefore Scottish Question Time in the House of Commons will cease the minute the Scottish parliament is up and running. That is my understanding.
The reason I raised this issue is that on 4th March the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryffe, asked the then Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Richard,
1948
what would be the consequence of that change in relation to this House. He said,
"Is my noble friend aware that from that date"—
the date on which the Scottish parliament comes into being—
"Scottish Questions will no longer be in order in the House of Commons?".
That is not strictly correct and I have described the situation that will obtain. The noble Lord continued,
"Can we have some assurance that similar strictures will not be applied in the House of Lords in these new constitutional arrangements?".
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, replied,
"My Lords, I am aware of no rules of order in your Lordships' House which would prevent a noble Lord from putting down such a question".—[Official Report, 4/3/98; col. 1200.]
That cannot be a complete or accurate answer. Who would answer Questions in this place on behalf of the Scottish executive and the Scottish parliament? It clearly cannot be right that Questions of that kind could be put in this House or in the other place.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, for drawing my attention to the fact that, during the days of Stormont, that was exactly what happened. There were no Questions on devolved matters in either House of Parliament, and there can be no Questions on devolved matters once this Act is in operation. Clause 27(7) as it stands, therefore, is dangerous and misleading. I should like to see it either amended or withdrawn, or at any rate to be given a clear statement from the Government as to the absolute limits that will be placed on future interventions from this Parliament in the internal affairs of Scotland after the Scottish parliament is up and running. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in the debate on this amendment because I had not understood what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, was getting at. However, having listened to him, I am tempted to rise to my feet and make a few observations.
First, we have been over this ground firmly with regard to many matters which are devolved but yet have a competence at Community level; for example, agriculture and fisheries. It was made clear to me that, despite these matters being devolved on the face of the Bill, Scottish Members of either this House or the other place could raise Questions on agriculture and fisheries in Scotland so long as they related to the common agriculture or common fisheries policies, or negotiations going on in relation to either.
As I understand it—the Minister made it clear to me and we were grateful for that—the position will be that the Minister for Agriculture, and in this House the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, will answer Questions on Scottish matters pertaining to agriculture and fisheries so far as they relate to the common agricultural and common fisheries policies. That is pretty well all of them and therefore gives us carte blanche to continue asking Questions, as my noble friend Lord Monro did yesterday when he asked about the problems of Scottish agriculture.

1949
If we go a little further into areas such as health and education where Community competence is not relevant, the money that will be spent by the Scottish parliament will be voted for by the other place. It seems to me, therefore, that, with a little ingenuity, any Member of the other place could ask Questions about devolved Scottish matters so long as he or she ties the Question into the money voted by the House of Commons to be sent to the Scottish parliament.
Therefore Questions ought to be allowed in the other place in these matters. What I am not sure about is who will answer them. Frankly, I do not believe that the office of Secretary of State for Scotland will last very long after the devolution settlement comes in. Let us assume that, at least in the short term, he will answer. Am I right in assuming that he will be held answerable for the money sent and spent and therefore he will have to answer Questions?
Those are matters to which we will probably struggle to find answers. Whether we will find answers to them on this side of May or whether they will develop in the post-devolutionary phase is a different matter. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, for slightly different reasons to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, I wondered why this provision was included in the Bill. Let us envisage the circumstance that it is not in the Bill. It does not seem to me that any possible restriction could be imposed on the power of this Parliament to legislate for Scotland at some point in the future.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Steel, I am not interested in having a statement of present intention from the Government. As I understand the constitutional theory, a future government would be perfectly entitled, where there is only a devolved parliament, to make laws for Scotland, not least (though I would not advise it) repealing this Act. If there is anything to be said for the Government, it is that at least they have been honourable in stating on the face of the Bill that this remains the case. It does not add or subtract anything to what is the proper constitutional position.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, noble Lords diagonally opposite tabled this amendment when Clause 27 was discussed in Committee and we have had much the same discussion as we had then. I remain unpersuaded by the arguments that I have heard. At the end of the day there is little between us in trying to describe the actual constitutional position and what the future arrangements are likely to be.
We believe that the Bill as a whole makes appropriate provision for sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament within the framework of devolution. That is the crux of it. We are implementing a constitutional
1950
arrangement which recognises—indeed has to recognise and rightly recognises—the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is there any necessity to rub it in?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is not a matter of rubbing it in. I welcome the continuing sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. However, in making such an arrangement it is important to capture in the Bill the essence of devolution as opposed to some other model, such as, perhaps, federalism. That is what subsection (7) does. In effect, it says that the United Kingdom Parliament retains all sovereignty, but it is invited to exercise that sovereignty in relation to devolved matters through conferring devolved competence on the Scottish parliament. Therefore, although, formally, the United Kingdom Parliament retains the ability to legislate on all matters, in practice it devolves the power to legislate other than on reserved matters to the Scottish parliament.
Clause 27 of the Bill makes it clear that the devolution of legislative competence to the Scottish parliament does not affect Westminster's ability to legislate for Scotland, even in relation to devolved matters. Indeed, as paragraph 4.4. of the White Paper explained, we envisage that there could be instances where it would be more convenient for legislation on devolved matters to be passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. However, as happened in relation to Northern Ireland earlier in the century, we would expect the convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to matters within the competence of the Scottish parliament without the consent of that parliament. It may just be convenient from time to time.
Various noble Lords have expressed concern about who will be accountable for various policies and who will answer questions about them. It is outwith the scope of this Bill to make arrangements for what would happen in this Parliament after devolution. In the other place the Procedure Committee is looking at what might happen to procedures there after devolution. It will be taking evidence from a range of sources and we should not prejudge the outcome of its considerations. However, as I have mentioned before, it is possible that a convention will develop in the other place that questions as regards matters within the competence of the Scottish parliament are not accepted if United Kingdom Ministers decline to answer them on the grounds that the subjects are matters for the Scottish executive. That approach has worked before in relation to Northern Ireland and I can see advantages in adopting it again.
No doubt your Lordships' House will want to reflect on what we do here following the outcome of the review in the other place. Personally, I should have thought that

1951
the kind of self-denying ordinance which may be followed elsewhere is worth considering. I suspect that will happen.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for answering the question about questions. Before he sits down I would like to be clear about legislation. Let us assume that the Government have negotiated on an issue which is devolved; for example, involving agriculture or fishing or some other issue. It has been negotiated in Brussels and a conclusion has been reached there which requires legislation. That has to be passed. Will it be passed by this House for the whole of the United Kingdom or will it pass legislation for England and Wales? I shall leave out Northern Ireland because it involves quite complex devolution. Will it be left to the Scottish parliament to pass parallel legislation for Scotland? I am unclear as to what will happen in those circumstances.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, there are sections of the Bill which we are likely to try to define as regards the nature of the relationship between this Parliament and the Scottish parliament in relation to the acceptance of international obligations and carrying them through into law. I would like to hold back on this until we reach that stage of the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, can he say how he sees the role of the Select Committees of this House? For example, there is Sub-Committee D of the European Communities Committee which concentrates on matters relating to agriculture and the like. Will they take into consideration the views of the Scottish parliament? Will the Select Committees address their recommendations to the Scottish parliament as well? These kinds of things should be sorted out before the Bill becomes law; otherwise there will be great confusion.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I believe that we sometimes create problems for ourselves by seeking to define precisely all matters of detail, when in some cases the application of common sense, based on experience, is perhaps the best way forward. What the noble Baroness asked is a prime example. I believe that something sensible will occur, which is a proper and reasonable way of conducting business.
As regards a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, about the Secretary of State for Scotland, he will be answerable to the UK Parliament for the discharge purely of his functions, including the transmission, and the amount, of the block grant to the Scottish executive. However, how that grant is spent will be a matter for the Scottish parliament to consider. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. In a way I am sorry that I dragged the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, into this discussion. He advanced a most dangerous doctrine by inviting ingenuity among
1952
Westminster parliamentarians in future to meddle—that appears to be his view—in the internal affairs of Scotland. I accept entirely what the Minister has just said in his closing remarks, that as long as the office of Secretary of State for Scotland exists—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that it will not be for very long—it would be unacceptable for questions to be tabled to him about how money is spent simply on the excuse that he is responsible for the transfer of the block grant from the Treasury to Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, introduced a Brussels red herring. I agree with the Minister in considering it a fair point as regards a subject such as agriculture and a clear correlation between Community competence, on the one hand, and the devolved administration of agriculture matters for Scotland, on the other. If there is some agreement where we have to legislate, for example, against, say, five-legged sheep, common sense dictates that the Scottish parliament and this Parliament would agree that one simple piece of legislation should go through this House affecting the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that anyone would take offence at that.
However, if it were a matter relating to our external obligations, that would clearly be a reserved matter. I do not think there is a problem. I welcome what the Minister said about a convention that will grow. I agree with that; namely, that this Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved matters. I would rather that the Minister had added the words "nor interfere" in devolved matters. I do not believe that that is a matter for discussion or questions in this or the other House. I believe that it would be resented in Holyrood if this Parliament were seen to try to interfere in devolved matters. I accept the Minister's assurance that that is not intended and that a convention will develop. It is just unfortunate that these two lines remain in the Bill. We shall just have to agree to differ. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Legislative competence]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 15, line 8, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 15, line 12, leave out subsection (6).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 131, 145, 192 and 192A. Government Amendment No. 192 inserts a new clause which makes provision as to the interpretation of:
"(a) any provision of an Act before the Scottish parliament, or of a Bill for such an Act, and
(b) any provision of subordinate legislation, made, confirmed or approves, or purporting to be made, confirmed or approved, by a member of the Scottish Executive",
where such a provision could, on one reading, be outwith the competence of Parliament. The provision clarifies and replaces the existing provisions in respect

1953
of these matters in Clauses 28(6) and 50(4). Those subsections are consequentially deleted by Amendments Nos. 115 and 145.
In the sense that it builds on the existing clauses, this is not a new provision. It is, however, a very important one and it may be helpful if I briefly explain how it is intended to work. First, the new clause is intended to apply to the interpretation of Bills as well as to Acts of the Scottish parliament. It will therefore apply in any case where the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is considering any reference to it of a Bill or of a devolution issue in connection with an Act of the Scottish parliament.
Secondly, the new clause makes it clear that any provisions in such legislation or in Bills which could be read widely as being outwith competence are to be read as narrowly as is required in order for them to be within legislative competence, but only so far as it is possible to do so.
An example might make this clearer. An Act of the Scottish parliament might make general provision enabling the Scottish ministers to hold a referendum on any matter. It would be possible to read that Act as enabling Scottish ministers to hold a referendum on some reserved matters such as independence or the monarchy. The Act would be ultra vires to that extent. However, in order to preserve the validity of that Act, the new clause would require the courts to read the Act as narrowly as is required for it to be intra vires, so far as it is possible to do so. In other words, the courts will be required to read the Act of the Scottish parliament as enabling only the holding of referendums on matters within the competence of the parliament. In that way, the Act is not rendered ultra vires to any extent.
This is thought to be the normal rule of construction which the courts would apply in construing legislation from parliaments with limited powers. They would seek to give effect to that legislation rather than to invalidate it. This is called the principle of efficacy. However, if a provision can clearly only be read as making provision outwith competence—for example, an Act of the Scottish parliament providing only for a referendum on independence or the monarchy—the new clause will not enable or require it to be read as being within competence.
We think it is necessary to have this provision to ensure that legislation made by the parliament and the executive can be given effect in relation to matters within their competence and does not have to be struck down merely because it could, on a broad reading, also potentially relate to matters outwith their competence.
As I have explained, Amendments Nos. 115 and 145 are consequential. They delete the redundant provisions in Clauses 28(6) and 50(4). I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, this group of amendments is clearly designed to establish a bias in favour of devolution. It is inevitable that some legislation passed by the Scottish parliament will be tantamount to sailing close to the wind. Wherever the
1954
line is drawn, it will be impossible to avoid coming up to the line. There cannot be a legislative no man's land. I am sure that those members of the Judicial Committee who have to rule on devolution issues will find helpful the instruction to read this legislation in favour of the Scottish parliament. This amendment will strengthen the devolution project as it maximises rather than minimises the powers devolved to the Scottish parliament.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has helpfully and fully explained the reasoning behind the principal amendment in this group, Amendment No. 192. Perhaps I may invite him, however, to clarify one point, which is whether in practical terms subsection (2) of the new clause will have any different effect from subsection (6) of Clause 28 as it stands. I say that because when this issue was last debated in Committee, my recollection is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, indicated that, if at all possible, the approach to the construction of legislation in one Bill should be the same as in another.
My amendment to Amendment No. 192, Amendment No. 192A, follows the approach taken in Clause 3(1) of the Human Rights Bill, which states:
"So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights".
Under the Human Rights Bill as amended in another place—it falls to be considered by your Lordships this Thursday—subordinate legislation will include Acts of the Scottish parliament. Therefore, under the Human Rights Bill, they will fall to be construed by the approach set out in subsection (1) which follows a different style from that in the government amendment but a fairly similar style to that of subsection (6). It was probably for that reason that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, expressed the wish that, if at all possible, the same approach should be followed, because if the same provision of an Act of the Scottish parliament falls to be construed under two Bills as against convention rights in each instance, it seems desirable that, if at all possible, the two Acts should indicate that that construction should be along similar lines.
I welcome that part of Amendment No. 192 which indicates that this provision should apply at a pre-legislative stage. Obviously, that is the purpose which my amendment, Amendment No. 131, seeks to achieve.
As I have said, my main concern relates to subsection (2) of the new clause that is Amendment No. 192. I want to be quite clear about whether the Government are suggesting a different approach from that on which we have been proceeding until now in this Bill and in the Human Rights Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am not in broad disagreement with the Government over what they are intending in this group of amendments. However, if

1955
the Lord Advocate will look at Amendment No. 192 and at subsection (2) of that new clause, he will find that,
"Such a provision"—
that is, an Act of the Scottish parliament—
"is to be read as narrowly as is required for it to be within competence, if such a reading is possible, and is to have effect accordingly".
I believe that the word "narrowly" is capable of two interpretations. One is that the provision is to be read so strictly that if there is a doubt, it must be considered outside the competence. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would be good enough to consider his view of the wording of that subsection because I am not sure that it is consistent with the broad intention of this group of amendments.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Reading that subsection as a whole, the direction is to read the provision—that is, an Act of the Scottish parliament,
"as narrowly as is required for it to be within competence".
If there are two possible interpretations, one of which would have the effect of taking the provision outwith competence, while the other interpretation would bring it within competence, that is the direction or instruction that we are hoping to give the court. I hope that that explains what we are about. I hope also that we have achieved our objective with regard to the terminology.
I turn now to the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. Following the earlier stages of the consideration of the Bill, and having regard to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, this matter was given detailed consideration by parliamentary draftsmen and by Ministers with their advice. I would emphasise that there is not very much between us as to the intention behind the provision. The amendments of the noble and learned Lord and our amendments are intended to ensure that the courts do not invalidate an Act of the Scottish parliament. In cases of ambiguity, both amendments require the courts to read an Act of the parliament in such a way as to assume that it was within the legislative competence of the parliament.
The difference is largely one of style. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord is more positive, whereas our position is more negative because it requires the court to read the Act narrowly. This matter has been considered by parliamentary counsel and it is their view that the way it is approached in this provision is more appropriate than the formulation of the noble and learned Lord. I understand how the noble and learned Lord came to such a formulation from the human rights legislation. That particular point was considered by parliamentary counsel and the view was taken that, in the context of this Bill, this terminology was the more favoured and more appropriate.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord is able to give an expression of the Government's intention. If a court failed to
1956
construe an Act of the Scottish parliament under Amendment No. 192, or if it construed it under Clause 3(1) of the Human Rights Bill, in practical terms would the same approach be adopted?
I accept that there are positive and negative ways of putting things. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will concede that throughout the debate on this Bill we on these Benches have tried to be as positive as possible. Such negativity as there has been has come from other quarters, which I would not care to name in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
Joking apart, I am not trying to open up a divide, I am trying to close one off. If it is possible for the noble and learned Lord—either today, on Thursday with the Human Rights Bill or when we come back to this on Third Reading—to make it clear that the form of words used by the parliamentary draftsman in Amendment No. 192 is, in practical terms, necessary to set the courts along an approach identical to that in the Human Rights Bill, that would cover any concern that I have.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am quite happy to give that assurance. I will come back and explain the matter more fully at Third Reading, if the House so wishes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Legislative competence: supplementary]:
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 15, line 18, after ("functions") insert ("in relation to the regulation of sea fishing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I speak to this amendment perhaps I could suggest that, to avoid confusion when we come to amendments which have already been spoken to, it might be handy if Ministers resurrect the old practice of getting up and saying that they have already spoken to them and that they beg to move. That would help us all—including, dare I say, the Government Whip—to follow where we are on the Bill and what we are doing.
Your Lordships might be puzzled by this amendment. When your Lordships read Clause 29(3), which was inserted into the Bill at Committee by the Government, you may wonder why I am attaching the words,
"in relation to the regulation of sea fishing".
The reason is very simple. When we discussed this matter in Committee on 21st July 1998, this subsection and a number of other amendments, which come later in the Bill, were all moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, on the basis of dealing with a sea-fishing problem. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, made it perfectly clear in col. 836 of the Official Report that this all had to do with,
"the exercise of ministerial and other functions in relation to the regulation of sea fishing [which] will often mean that functions are being exercised outside Scotland."—[Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 836.]
I do not want to pray in aid all that the noble Lord said to prove my point but, perhaps as a résumé, I will quote from column 838 of the Official Report where he said,
"In effect, Scottish Ministers will be responsible for managing fisheries within the Scottish zone and for managing Scottish boats; and MAFF Ministers will be responsible for managing fisheries within the English zone and for managing English boats".—[Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 838.]
Later in column 841 of the Official Report he said, "The amendments"—
in plural, including the amendment that incorporated this subsection into the Bill—
"are required, first, in order to ensure that there is an effective transfer to Scottish Ministers of functions in relation to the regulation of Scottish sea fisheries; and, secondly, to ensure that the competence of the Scottish parliament and of Scottish Ministers does not extend to regulating sea fishing by non-Scottish boats outside the Scottish zone of British fishery limits".—[Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 841.]
In other words, the whole debate was very much predicated on the fact that the whole group of amendments concerned sea fishing.
I said in my response that I accepted and understood what was being done. But I was puzzled as to why the first amendment—which is the amendment that we now see as Clause 29(3)—had no reference to sea fishing in it. The Minister said he would reflect on what I was saying during the summer. As he has not brought forward any amendments, clearly he has reflected and he has decided that he does not need to do anything.
As it stands, the functions in Clause 29(3) appear open-ended. It is quite a widely drawn subsection. We know from what the Minister said in Committee that it governs matters entirely relating to sea fisheries. For the avoidance of doubt we should put into the legislation the phrase that I have inserted so that it reads,
"specify functions in relation to the regulation of sea fishing".
No doubt the Minister will give me further assurances, but it would be easier if it was clear on the face of the Bill that this particular subsection referred to the regulation of sea fishing. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I recognise the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He put the context of the earlier amendment and he got it absolutely right; we were talking about sea fisheries. But, on reflection, subsection (3) involves a little bit more than that and I will deal with that extension. Its whole purpose will be to clarify which existing ministerial functions will transfer to Scottish ministers by providing for Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to specify which functions are or are not exercisable in or as regards Scotland. Any order made under Clause 29(3) is subject to affirmative procedure, both at Westminster and in the Scottish parliament. The use of this power will require the agreement of both parliaments. There will be occasions when, although a function is exercisable outwith Scotland, it will be important to be able to regard it as one which is exercisable in or as regards Scotland by virtue of some other connection that it has to Scotland.
1958
The noble Lord is absolutely right in saying that the principal use will be in functions relating to sea fisheries. That is where it is essential that this process exists. But on reflection—I did think about it over the summer—I saw that it has other uses as well; for example, in relation to protection of the marine environment, where existing functions are similarly exercisable in relation to areas of the sea. So it is not just sea fishing but the associated marine environment where one needs this use of words to be able to act effectively.
When such regulatory functions are exercised outwith Scotland there will need to be clear connections to Scotland to justify action being taken by Scottish Ministers and for Scottish courts to recognise jurisdiction in trying offences under Scots law. At sea, however, it is possible to envisage various connections to Scotland that might be thought to satisfy the condition "as regards Scotland". Equally, it might be possible to establish various connections to other parts of the United Kingdom in respect of any particular function. The power could also be used in connection with the executive devolution of functions to Scottish Ministers under Clause 59; for example, by providing that the appointment of Scottish members of a UK or GB body operating in a reserved area is a function exercisable as regards Scotland, so that Scottish Ministers can be given a role in the exercise of the appointment function under Clause 59.
I think I have demonstrated that the principal reason for having the power is related to sea fisheries, but there are certain very, very secondary contexts in which the power would be exercisable and necessary as well. I mentioned the marine environment and the business of Scottish members on GB bodies and the ability of Scottish Ministers to be involved in those appointments. That is why there is reference to "as regards Scotland"—that is necessary—but it is a very minor extension beyond sea fisheries. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suspect that the Minister should be grateful to me for putting down this amendment because it has allowed him to put on record a much wider interpretation of this subsection than one would have construed from his words at the Committee stage. I suspect that if the Minister had tried to do something rather wider than sea fishing some aggrieved party might easily have taken him to court and prayed in aid his words at the Committee stage. So I think I have done the Minister a big favour—I hope he appreciates it—by allowing him to put it on the record, in case any Pepper v. Hart occasions arise, that this subsection must be interpreted a good deal wider than it was initially in Committee.
I am happy to accept the noble Lord's explanation. I am happy to accept that it does have a wider application. I am therefore content to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 15, line 20, at end insert—
("() An Order in Council under this section may also make such modifications of—

(a) any enactment or prerogative instrument (including any enactment comprised in or made under this Act), or

(b) any other instrument or document,

as Her Majesty considers necessary or expedient in connection with other provision made by the Order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 117 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 205. These are technical amendments which complete the package of government amendments to the powers to make subordinate legislation which we began in Committee. I am pleased to say that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has reported on our amendments and has welcomed them, recognising that the approach is easier to use and meets the concerns that the committee expressed in its earlier report. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, last week, when we had the Northern Ireland Bill before us, we found provisions under which any use by the proposed assembly in Northern Ireland which appeared to be ultra vires could be referred to the judicial process in ways that were specified. The Government had tabled a new clause saying that if the Secretary of State thought it was ultra vires she could take steps to put it right. Reference was made to this Bill because in it we find that there are somewhat analogous powers, although they are not quite the same. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what would happen in the following circumstances. Let us suppose that under Clause 29, as amended, an Order in Council were made in order to modify an enactment or prerogative instrument and then, under Clause 32, the matter was referred to the Judicial Committee, which reached a different conclusion from that of Her Majesty, acting, of course, on the advice of her Ministers. It would seem that the Secretary of State has some powers, but we need not trouble about those. But let us suppose that the Order in Council procedure and the decision of the judicial proceedings did not reach the same conclusion. What would happen? Which of them would have precedence?
Lord Sewel: And answer came there none, my Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for that point. He will not be surprised to know that I cannot give him an answer here and now, but I promise to give him an answer as quickly and as fully as I can.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 15, line 21, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Scrutiny of Bills by the Scottish Executive]:
[Amendment No. 119 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 119A:
Page 15, line 30, at end insert—
("() The Scottish Executive and its members shall not be liable in damages to any person who suffers loss as a consequence of an incorrect statement made under subsection (1).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 119D return to an issue which arose in Committee on 28th July and relate to the statement which a member of the Scottish executive has to make on introducing a Bill to the new parliament. An issue arose as to the nature of the responsibility of the Minister on such an occasion. At one stage the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, indicated that there would be no legal responsibility on the individual Minister concerned, but in an earlier part of her speech she referred to the provisions of Clause 48(4), which seem to suggest that not only the Minister who made the statement but other Ministers would also be legally responsible.
From time to time, through no fault of the member of the Scottish executive concerned, an erroneous view will be taken as to the compatibility of a Bill with convention rights or any other aspect of the competence of the new parliament. There being a question of law, lawyers are not always correct, which is why we have a system of appellate courts to correct even the judges who occasionally get the law wrong. It seems to me to be entirely inappropriate that there should be any legal responsibility on a member of the executive or indeed any liability in damages. I have tabled these amendments in the hope that an unequivocal response can be given by the Government. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, despite the clear explanation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, the Government do not believe that these amendments are necessary. They would prevent members of the Scottish executive or the presiding officer from being liable in damages if someone suffers loss as a consequence of an incorrect statement by a member of the executive that an Act containing the same provisions would be within the competence of the parliament.
We consider that the principles of ordinary law should apply and we do not think it would be right to afford a member of the Scottish executive or the presiding officer the additional protection of these amendments. If someone has suffered a loss as a result of reliance on a statement that proves later to be incorrect—or, more particularly, negligently made—and can demonstrate to a court that he has a competent and relevant action for damages, then it would be wrong to prevent either the member of the Scottish executive or the presiding officer from being liable in damages.

1961
I should point out that when we come to discuss Amendment No. 138, to which my noble friend will speak later, it will be seen that we have provided the parliament and its various officers with the minimal protection that we consider appropriate. If the Scottish parliament considers it appropriate to confer additional protections on the Scottish executive or the presiding officer in relation to damages then it could do that; subject, of course, to compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. With that explanation, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He has certainly clarified the matter, although not quite in the way that I anticipated. As I understand his answer, it is to the effect that the Government do not exclude the possibility of legal liability and a liability in damages being established in an appropriate case, however unlikely that might be. However, as the purpose of tabling the amendments has been served, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 119A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 119B not moved.]
Clause 31 [Scrutiny of Bills by the Presiding Officer]:
[Amendment No. 120 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 15, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("Bills") in line 38 and insert ("It is for the Presiding Officer to submit").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall begin by speaking also to Amendments Nos. 122 and 124. The Government have brought forward these amendments after being convinced by the arguments that we heard at an earlier stage of the Bill which were offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. I hope that the amendments virtually establish—in fact, entirely establish—what he sought to achieve at that time.
The amendments turn subsections (3) to (6) of Clause 31 into free standing duties. At present, the clause is written in terms of provisions which are required to be contained in standing orders. During the debate on this clause in Committee, noble Lords proposed that these would be better dealt with on the face of the Bill. We took the matter away, considered the arguments and, I am happy to say, found merit in the latter. We have, therefore, brought forward these amendments in order to capture what was requested.
Amendment No. 126 is a technical drafting amendment which will ensure that references to legislative competence are consistent. I shall not anticipate Amendment No. 129 because I am afraid I do not have particularly good news in that respect. Nevertheless, I beg to move Amendment No. 121.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, these government amendments represent a welcome revision of Clause 31. Indeed, the amended clause is certainly
1962
easier to read. Therefore, I can conclude that the amendments moved in Committee were useful catalysts for revision. The proposed procedure now seems straightforward.
I continue to believe that the opposition parties will pounce on anything that is, or seems to be, ultra vires. That action would be in the form of identifying incompetence by a member of the executive or by a Back-Bencher. Perhaps I should modify the expression "opposition parties" in the light of the hopes for consensual politics—or, possibly some hope. Perhaps the phase "non-executive parties" would be more in keeping. These government amendments have tidied up the clause and made it far less contentious.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that I welcome the government amendments which meet the points that I raised in Committee. I believe I was less than charitable on that occasion about the generosity of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, and I withdraw unequivocally any criticisms that I then proffered. I am also grateful for the fact that Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 were withdrawn from the Marshalled List. I do not need to go into the background of that, but I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and his colleagues for recognising the point that was raised through the usual channels on these matters.
Amendment No. 129 addresses a matter raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, when we debated the role of the presiding officer under Clause 31. On that occasion, your Lordships will recall that subsection (2) of that clause was altered from the way that it was set out in the original Bill. The noble and learned Lord suggested that the presiding officer should also be given the right to refer a Bill to the Judicial Committee for the purposes of pre-legislative scrutiny in the same way that is now proposed for the Advocate General, the Lord Advocate or the Attorney General. I fully anticipate that there may well be an attempt in another place to restructure Clause 31 in some way so as to accommodate the Government's views on the matter. But who can say what will happen to such an attempt?
Your Lordships are faced with Clause 31 in its present terms. On considering the Bill at a pre-legislative point, the Advocate General, the Lord Advocate, or indeed the Attorney General may consider it to be of value to refer the issue as to whether the Bill or any of its provisions is within legislative competence to the Judicial Committee. Therefore, it seems to me that the presiding officer—who, under the Bill, has a similar duty—should have a similar privilege of a right of reference. That is why, when we reach that stage, I intend to move Amendment No. 129.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 15, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("not") and insert ("The Presiding Officer shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Steel of Aikwood Lord Steel of Aikwood moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 16, line 2, leave out ("Judicial Committee") and insert ("Constitutional Court").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should confess at once that I am slightly embarrassed by the absence of my noble friend Lord Lester, who is supposed to be moving this amendment. However, I understand that he is en route to the Chamber. Indeed, we have made such astonishingly fast progress on the Bill this afternoon that he has been caught out.
In Committee I said that at Report stage we would introduce a major amendment to establish in effect a constitutional court by which we mean to update the present procedures of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The whole string of amendments which we are now discussing are mainly paving amendments to Amendment No. 206 on the Marshalled List which sets out a proposed new schedule to establish what we prefer to call a constitutional court.
My noble and learned friends have been active on the Northern Ireland Bill and are proposing a similar provision within that Bill. We are trying to tidy up what seems to be a piecemeal approach by the Government to this whole question of dealing with possible conflicts between the devolved parliaments and this Parliament after devolution. Because the Government have proceeded in a piecemeal fashion with the Wales Act, the Northern Ireland legislation and this legislation, no one appears to have given serious thought to establishing a proper constitutional court, as is common in most countries with devolved parliaments. We are relying instead on our ancient use of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Although I am a member of the Privy Council I must admit that I have never met the Judicial Committee. However, I understand it is a large body with about 30 members—I stand open to correction—and consists of all the current serving and retired Law Lords, and that at any time any small number of these may be appointed to hear any particular case.
We propose that this rather large, amorphous body should be slimmed down and made more precise and that a constitutional court should be drawn from nine members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We propose that no fewer than four of these should be people who hold, or have held, high judicial office in England; that no fewer than two of them should hold, or have held, high judicial office in Scotland; and that at least one member of that nine should be someone who holds, or has held high, judicial office in Northern Ireland. We propose that on any one particular case:
"No fewer than five members of the Court (including at least one member who has held high judicial office in Scotland) shall sit to hear any proceedings under this Act".
I have not studied the Northern Ireland Bill, but I believe that my noble and learned friends have proposed a similar provision in that Bill as regards the member from Northern Ireland.
We then propose that there should be a nominating committee of persons set out in our draft new schedule who should recommend duly qualified persons to Her Majesty for appointment as the president or members of
1964
the court. We suggest that that nominating committee should consist of the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division, the Vice-Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Justice Clerk, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, two persons appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons, at least one of whom should be resident in Wales, one person appointed by the presiding officer of the Scottish parliament, and one person appointed by the presiding officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We have set out other self-explanatory provisions which relate to age limits and the qualifications of the court.
This is a serious attempt to stimulate a general debate on how we deal with constitutional disputes in the new era when we will have these three devolved assemblies or parliaments operating within the United Kingdom. I hope that we shall at least have a fruitful discussion on them. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty in which the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, finds himself and I do not wish to add to that difficulty. However, there is one aspect of the proposal on which I seek clarification before I can reach any conclusion on it. I refer to the nominating committee for the constitutional court. The noble Lord has described the office holders which I would properly envisage would make up such a nominating committee. However, if you are a member of that nominating committee, can you sit on the constitutional court? It seems to me to be a rather startling proposition that you could nominate yourself. It seems to me that a number of those mentioned in paragraph eight of the proposed new schedule would be eminently suited to sit on a constitutional court. However, it would be odd if they could effectively appoint each other to be participants in that court.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I can envisage a strong case for a constitutional court, somewhat akin to the Supreme Court in the United States of America, if the constitutional arrangements were to change in the direction of federalism. I have had occasion to see the Supreme Court of the USA in action. It was enormously impressive. It had written pleadings before it and it decided a large number of cases dealing with states' rights as against federal rights in rapid succession. The Judicial Committee also has a wealth of constitutional experience from the 19th century—when it had to decide issues involving dominion rights and also provincial rights in Canada—to the present day when it has interpreted the rights and the protections of the Maoris in New Zealand under the Waitingi Treaty. I understand that this treaty protected the monarchy and in return the monarchy protected the rights of the Maoris. That was an extremely clever provision on the part of Queen Victoria and the Ministers who advised her at that time. At this stage the Government are right

1965
to place their confidence in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in view of its wealth of constitutional experience.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I wish to add a few words at this stage. I cannot guarantee to keep speaking until the noble Lord, Lord Lester, enters the Chamber, but I had intended to offer some observations on this matter, as I indicated when the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said in Committee that he would table these amendments on Report. I said that I would be glad to see them.
I feel that the whole House ought to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who has recently entered the Chamber, for having given the House the opportunity to consider this important point. I hope that the amendments will receive consideration at this stage, although it may be difficult to reach a conclusion upon them.
There are various points involved in the proposals which we shall hear in due course from the noble Lord, Lord Lester. My particular concern relates to the composition of the court or body which will deal with devolution issues. Under the Wales Act, the Northern Ireland Bill and this Bill it has been decided to leave this matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We have heard no reasoned explanation as to why that body was chosen. As the noble Lord has said, it is an amorphous body. I think he underestimated the potential number of its members. I would put the number at over 50 when one takes into account the Court of Appeal and retired Lord Justices of Appeal. At any rate it is an amorphous body which is limited only to a small extent by Clause 96 of the Bill.
The selection of the people to sit on any particular case is left to an informal process not defined by the Bill at all. It may be said—if the noble and learned Lord is to reply to this debate, he may say this—and it certainly could be said, that that is already the position under the existing law. At present the Judicial Committee is even larger than is contemplated by this Bill because potentially it could include Commonwealth members. The selection of members to sit on any individual case is by convention—I emphasise that word because there is no legal provision which states this—chosen by the senior Law Lord. Having had some small experience in that position, I can say that it works quite well, as do many other informal elements in our constitution. Up to now the Judicial Committee has been used to dealing with important constitutional points. Questions arising under the treaty of Waikato relating to the Maoris—I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, is in his place—have been decided by constitutional courts; and previously under the constitutions of Australia and Canada, until the right of appeal was abolished, very important questions were dealt with by the body so constituted in that informal manner.
Under this Bill we are entering upon a totally new dimension as compared with the kind of cases that have come up to be considered in Downing Street. There are
1966
questions of deep controversy, possibly political, which are likely to bear deeply upon the constitution of the United Kingdom and which are sure to be stirred up in Scotland by the active and vigorous elements there which are pressing for an extension of the powers of the Scottish parliament and will continue to do so. Difficult and sensitive questions are likely to arise. We have only to look at Schedule 5 to the Bill to see the vast range of questions that may have to be faced. We must also remember that decisions of the Privy Council, or whatever body it is, will be binding upon English courts and even upon the House of Lords. So there are questions of great difficulty and importance.
In those circumstances, is it not right to say that the process of selection of the judges to sit on a particular case is sure to come under scrutiny by those who are interested in extending the Scottish jurisdiction? Is it not desirable to remove that area from controversy altogether by giving a firm direction in this Bill?
We are between two very different concepts. Under the Bill there is an amorphous body, one that is not defined at all; under the amendments to be proposed from the Liberal Democrat Benches there is great precision, with everything spelt out down to the latest comma: the dominating committees, those who are qualified to sit and those who are not. There is very great precision. I do not know at this stage whether the Government are prepared to go as far as this at this very late stage in this one Bill, when the commitment in other Bills is more or less to a different system. Perhaps they are. I am sorry to speak in the absence of my noble and learned friends, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I hope that this does not go too far. I give general support to the concept proposed in these amendments. I hope that if the Government do not feel able to go the whole way and accept the whole elaborate structure, which is no doubt meritorious but requires a good deal of scrutiny by this place, given that the other place will not have time to examine it at all, perhaps they will at least be willing to contemplate a slightly more limited mechanism in this Bill under which, by an Order in Council made under Clause 96, it might be possible to give some greater definition to the nature of the body that is to sit on devolution issues.
I referred to Clause 96, which gives power up to a certain point to make Orders in Council. If that is not wide enough, it would be easy to extend it at a later stage so as to give power to deal with this matter. I make no suggestion. I simply hope that, if the Government are not willing to accept all the proposals holus-bolus that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will later urge upon us, they will treat the matter seriously and contemplate including a provision in the Bill to give greater precision to the composition of this court which will deal with important questions. To that extent I warmly support the proposal.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: My Lords, in supporting the tenor of the remarks made by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, I should first declare an interest, although it is highly contingent and somewhat temporary. As a number of noble Lords may confirm, at the age of 72, 75 seems to be rushing upon one.

1967
Clause 96(2)(b) of the Bill contains the words,
"ignoring for this purpose section 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1887".
The effect is that there is to be ignored the membership of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council drawn from the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom. I respectfully raise the query whether that is justified.
Three points occur in that connection. First, for many years the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, including Scottish and Northern Ireland Law Lords, has adjudicated on constitutional questions from various parts of the Commonwealth, including New Zealand and even Maori questions upon which the committee has been able to give guidance. A degree of reciprocity would seem not at all incongruous. Secondly, it is the case that in some other Commonwealth jurisdictions there is already a wider body of judicial experience of human rights law than as yet exists in the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, an inquiry is presently in being commonly known as the Bloody Sunday inquiry, relating to Northern Ireland. For that purpose an inquiry of three persons has been constituted. Two of the three are Commonwealth judges; one is a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It has not been thought right to ignore the Commonwealth for that purpose. One therefore wonders why it is thought right to ignore Commonwealth members of the Judicial Committee for the purposes of the Scotland Bill, the Northern Ireland Bill and the legislation relating to Wales.
In principle there are valid reasons for preferring a Constitutional Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for the purpose of these devolved questions. The reasons pertain to experience, expertise, specialisation and temperament. Lord X may be admirably equipped to decide issues of domestic law, but by experience, interest and temperament may not be so well qualified to deal with human rights questions. They are a field of their own, in which there is a large body of international jurisprudence—a jurisprudence which requires a sympathetic appreciation of the aims of human rights combined with a certain amount of pragmatism and practicality, a combination of idealism and feet on the ground. It tends to be a field of its own and there is much to be said for a court of its own, a court which will have the opportunity of building up a body of jurisprudence not only within the United Kingdom but also attracting international respect. It would be a somewhat specialised, dedicated court, a limited corps of specialised judges.
It can be said that all this can be achieved under the existing mechanism of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is true, as I understand the position, that the senior Law Lord for the time being has a residual power in the Judicial Committee to nominate the five members of the committee who will sit on any one case. But that is not the end of the matter. Experience seems to show that there is an administrative element in the question as well: at a somewhat different level administrative convenience and even quite minor issues of expense may have some influence on the composition of the committee.
1968
From the point of view of a security for the effective ascertainment and development of the human rights law that will be required under these pieces of devolution legislation, it may well be that, as against the perhaps less than transparent methods of selecting the composition of the court to sit on individual cases, there will be something rather more open, rather more specialised and possibly therefore more effective in this field than what is at present proposed in the Bill.
It is for those reasons that I support the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his colleagues.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I owe the House an apology for having arrived late. Luckily I do not have to pay costs as I would perhaps in court! I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood for having introduced and moved this and other amendments that are in truth the brainchild more of my noble friend Lord Goodhart and myself. It has given me the opportunity to listen to two of our truly great judges, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Cooke of Thorndon, before I explain some of the background to what is now being debated.
It is with great pleasure that I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, in the House. I once had the privilege of joining him in a great case in Strasbourg. He is in that special category of judges from Northern Ireland who are especially brave and noted for their fearless independence.
The purpose of these amendments is to protect the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional separation of powers in the determination of constitutional issues by the final court. The means suggested by the amendments to achieve that aim are threefold: first, to create an appropriate pool of well qualified senior judges to serve on the court; secondly, to create a mechanism for appointing members of the court which is likely to enhance its independence and legitimacy; and, thirdly, to make the Lord Chancellor and former Lord Chancellors ineligible to sit judicially in the final court which determines these issues. That is dealt with by Amendment No. 196.
There will be differences of opinion as to whether we have chosen the right nomenclature for the final court—a "constitutional court", as in South Africa, rather than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There will also he differences of opinion as to whether we have chosen the right way of creating the final court. We are not dogmatically committed to any particular mechanism. What we seek at this stage is to debate the important issues of principle which are essential for maintaining judicial independence and for the rule of law.
During my time at the Bar, the role of our judges has been transformed from being lions sheltered beneath the Throne to a more powerful and controversial judicial role as a co-ordinate branch of government. Subject to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, our courts must set aside Acts of Parliament if they are inconsistent

1969
with directly effective European Community law. With the development of judicial review, the courts scrutinise the decisions of Ministers, civil servants, and other public authorities to determine whether public powers have been abused.
Under the Human Rights Act, which is woven into the fabric of the devolution settlements, our courts will have to strive to interpret all existing and future legislation to be compatible with human rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. If the Scottish Parliament or Scottish administration, or other public authorities, act in breach of Convention rights, or if they otherwise act beyond their devolved powers, the courts will have to prevent them from exceeding their powers.
The constitutional issues will be similar to the issues decided by courts elsewhere in the Commonwealth and in Europe: by the Supreme Court of Canada, or the High Court of Australia, or the Constitutional Court of South Africa, or of France or Germany. They will involve difficult and controversial decisions about where state power ends and where personal liberty begins; decisions about striking a fair balance between competing human rights; decisions about the respective powers and duties of the Parliament of Westminster and central Government and of the devolved legislatures and administrations.
These decisions are properly justiciable, but they will sometimes be politically and ethically controversial. That is why it is especially important to ensure that the independence, authority and legitimacy of the final court are securely protected.
We believe that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is an unsatisfactory model for a final constitutional court for three main reasons. In the first place, as noble Lords have indicated, it has a large and amorphous membership of retired and serving judges, dominated, because of the great size of the English Court of Appeal, by retired and serving judges from that English court. Unlike the House of Lords, whose membership is fixed and stable, the Privy Council, with a jurisdiction derived from the antique Judicial Committee Act 1833, is large, uneven, and geographically completely unbalanced. It is surely anomalous that the entire body of serving and retired members of the English Court of Appeal or for that matter of any other court, should automatically be eligible to sit on the Judicial Committee as the final court.
The second problem is that the composition of the Judicial Committee is in any particular case to be decided in theory by the Lord Chancellor and in practice by the senior Law Lord. There are no prescribed criteria in the Bill according to which the senior Law Lord is to choose from among the large pool of members of the Judicial Committee who have held high judicial office, whether in terms of their special expertise in public law, or in terms of the particular legal system of the United Kingdom where they have performed their judicial functions.
1970
Although the pool of potential members of the Judicial Committee is so large, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, pointed out, some very experienced judges with great judicial experience in deciding constitutional cases are excluded from the pool. Under Clause 96(2) as it stands, the senior Law Lord will not be able to choose very senior and experienced Commonwealth judges, such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, with much greater expertise in deciding constitutional issues than many of their British brethren. Normally, these judges would be eligible as members of the Judicial Committee but the Government seek to exclude them from the pool.
There is a very real danger that without prescribed and appropriate standards and criteria, the way in which the senior Law Lord exercises his discretionary powers of appointment, on the Lord Chancellor's behalf, in any particular case may become a matter of political controversy, whether in Edinburgh, Belfast, or London. If that happened it would impair the independence and legitimacy of the judicial process, turning the Judicial Committee into a political football, kicked hard by politicians for their partisan political ends.
Nor is that all. If because of the great workload already imposed upon the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the senior Law Lord were driven to choose less senior and experienced judges than the Law Lords there is a real danger that the Judicial Committee would lack the authority of the House of Lords. There is also a danger that decisions of the Judicial Committee might be inconsistent with decisions of the House of Lords, leading to awkward conflicts and a weakening of the authority of the judicial process and a lack of legal certainty.
The third flaw in the system proposed is that it breaches the separation of powers and the institutional independence of the judiciary. Under the legislation as it stands the present Lord Chancellor and former Lord Chancellors will remain eligible to sit judicially in the Judicial Committee, and for that matter in the Appeal Committee of this House, in devolution and human rights cases. This is the position even though the Government, of which the Lord Chancellor is a senior and very powerful Minister of justice, are directly or indirectly interested, and even though a party to the dispute is represented by the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate, the Advocate General for Scotland or the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.
No one doubts that the present Lord Chancellor wears his three official hats with panache and distinction: as legislator, as Minister of justice and as a senior judge. We do not doubt his personal independence and impartiality in any way. But what matters is that the institutional independence as well as the individual and personal independence of the judiciary should be seen to be free of direct or indirect government interference or any conflict of interest that breaches the separation of judicial from legislative and executive powers. It is no answer to the problem for the Lord Chancellor to delegate the function of appointing the members of the court to the senior Law Lord. That leaves a potentially embarrassing tension within the rather opaque system of choosing the court, especially were the Lord Chancellor

1971
to be unwise enough to seek to persuade the senior Law Lord to agree to his sitting as a member of the Judicial Committee or the Appellate Committee.
In two recent Written Answers the Lord Chancellor explained that where cases arise in which the Government or a Minister has an interest as a party litigant, or in which constitutional or political issues are involved, he will exercise his discretion so as not to sit where he considers that it would be inappropriate or improper to do so. With respect, that statement does not altogether deal with the problem. In the first place it should not be for the Lord Chancellor with his three hats to decide whether it is appropriate or proper for him to sit in such cases. The time has surely come to recognise that inevitably it would be constitutionally inappropriate and improper for the Lord Chancellor to sit in any case where the Government or a Minister has an interest as a party litigant or in which constitutional or political issues are involved; in other words—with great respect, it is difficult to say this in the presence of such a distinguished Lord Chancellor—the Lord Chancellor should disqualify himself or be disqualified from sitting in cases of that kind.
Secondly, we had supposed from an earlier Written Answer that the Lord Chancellor had completely delegated to the senior Law Lord the power to decide upon the composition of the Judicial Committee but his latest Answer suggests that he regards his own role as a matter to be determined by the Lord Chancellor himself. That would surely be inappropriate given the conflict of interest inherent in his many public offices.
Thirdly, the Lord Chancellor draws support for his Answers from the fact that Lord Chancellors have recently sat in criminal and tax appeals. That is true. But it does not mean that it was or is now appropriate for him or his predecessor to sit in cases involving the powers of the state and the relationship between the different branches of government. This is a sensitive matter in which counsel in such cases have felt embarrassed about the Lord Chancellor's presence as a member of the Appeal Committee. I do not refer to the present Lord Chancellor, but Lord Chancellors in general. I myself found it embarrassing when the previous Lord Chancellor sat in the appeal in Pepper v. Hart to decide whether it was permissible in law to have judicial recourse to parliamentary debates. The Lord Chancellor presided while the Attorney-General contended that recourse to Hansard would breach parliamentary privilege and weaken the good governance of the country.
The first appeal in which the present Lord Chancellor sat concerned judicial review of public authorities. Last week, I read of a criminal appeal involving the limits upon the right to freedom of association and assembly guaranteed by the human rights convention. There is real concern, not about the present Lord Chancellor, but the recent practice, in the light of the modernisation of the system, to sit in cases of that character. I have discussed the matter with a number of lawyers and judges: for example, Heather Hallett, QC, who chairs the Bar Council of England and Wales; Philip Dry, President of the Law Society of Scotland; Antoinette Curran, President of the Law Society of Northern
1972
Ireland; Roy Amlot, QC, recent chairman of the Criminal Bar Association; and Michael Lavery, QC, chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. They all share our concern about the Lord Chancellor continuing to sit in such cases.
Were the Lord Chancellor to sit as a member of the Judicial Committee or the House of Lords in its judicial capacity in such cases I have little doubt that the European Court of Human Rights would, if necessary, find our system to have breached the guarantee of institutional judicial independence under Article 6 of the convention. It has already done so in the case of Procola, involving the Conseil d'Etat of Luxembourg. It would be deeply embarrassing if it became necessary to challenge the presence of the Lord Chancellor before his fellow Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and before the European Court. It would surely be better for the Lord Chancellor to concede the position gracefully, as I am sure he will, without the need for binding rules in tablets of stone. We greatly welcome the general thrust of the Government's constitutional reform programme. We hope that the Government will be willing to accept the implications of that programme for the choice of the final constitutional court and the way that its members are selected.
We have attempted to devise a broadly representative nominating process that avoids appointing judges only after what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, has rightly described in relation to the appointment of American federal judges as a,
"cruel, and often politically motivated, scrutiny by a senate committee".
My noble friend Lord Goodhart, who drafted the amendments, will explain their scope and detail. I very much hope that there will be support for their aims from all sides of the House, especially from the Woolsack. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, for so ably standing in. He ran on to the pitch wearing a No. 12 jersey and demonstrated a professionalism that left all of us breathless. I am not a lawyer but I am concerned about the constitution. I am deeply aware of the fact that the Government have set their hand to constitutional reform in a very big way. By the time we reach the end of this Parliament we shall have witnessed constitutional change on a scale that has not been seen for decades.
I support constitutional change in all of the areas and along the lines proposed by the Government but I am conservative about changing the constitution. I believe that great care should be taken to get it right and to ensure that what we do on behalf of the people will last and serve them as well as the constitutional arrangements that they have had for so long. A constitutional court has, as a matter of government policy, already been opposed. It is interesting that no amendment was tabled to make such a proposal during the passage of the Human Rights Bill. It is also interesting that it did not emerge when the House discussed Wales. I believe that to bring it into the

1973
Scotland Bill in this way is to introduce too far-reaching a proposal and that it is better to examine this idea once all of the constitutional changes are in place and have worked their way through.
I do not much like Amendment No. 196, not least because I have always held Lord Chancellors in the highest regard. I hold the present Lord Chancellor in particularly high regard because he is a close friend. I would not like to consider the suggestion that power should be taken away in this way until I have examined carefully and thoughtfully the case made today by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and others of our great legal Members.
I greatly admire the previous Lord Chancellor. I thought him a fine man in that role; indeed a fine man. Therefore, I say this to the House. The amendment may be a good idea. I do not know; I am not a legal man. But I wish to be able to consider it carefully. In order to do that, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments this evening. There is plenty of time to change the constitution. However, if the noble Lord feels persuaded to press the amendments to a Division, I hope that the Government will resist them.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, it is an extremely important issue. I have little to add to what my noble friend Lord Lester said. The arguments he put forward on why we should have a constitutional court are incontrovertible. I entirely agree with him on the reasons why the Lord Chancellor should not sit as a Member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or as a member of the constitutional court, for the purpose of deciding devolution issues. Effectively, they are issues between the Government at Westminster and the government at Holyrood.
The Lord Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet. He is de facto a Minister of Justice. It would hardly be surprising if in those circumstances, in the course of a dispute between Westminster and Holyrood, he was regarded as parti pris rather than someone who was impartial and independent. Impartiality and independence are at the core of the judicial system. It would be my hope that the senior Law Lord would not seek to appoint a sitting Lord Chancellor; nor would a sitting Lord Chancellor think it right to accept an invitation to sit on the Judicial Committee, if one were offered to him.
The position of former Lord Chancellors—we have excluded them from the amendments—is somewhat different.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, will he elaborate a little on the position of former Lord Chancellors? In one fashion or another, I can understand that the present occupier of the Woolsack from time to time might be seen to be excluded in the case of a matter of high constitutional dispute. However, I have greater difficulty in understanding why someone who has left the Woolsack should be excluded from participation in this court. It is not difficult to think of very distinguished Lord Chancellors. One does not have to go back further than
1974
the present occupant's predecessor to find someone who might have occupied a position on such a constitutional court and have been a great adornment to it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I accept entirely what the noble and learned Lord says. It is an arguable matter. In future there might be a Lord Chancellor who had been what one might describe as such a highly political animal that Holyrood might think it inconsistent with the existence of an impartial and independent tribunal for that particular Lord Chancellor to be a member. That is not an argument I apply to the previous Lord Chancellor. It could be argued that if there are some cases where it would be inappropriate for a former Lord Chancellor to sit it might be better to exclude former Lord Chancellors altogether rather than to have invidious questions arising as to whether an individual was or was not a desirable member of the constitutional court.
At this stage I do not propose to go into any detail about the nature of the amendment which I drafted at the request of my noble friend Lord Lester. I fully recognise the problems of timing. It is a fundamental issue. Our amendment was designed to raise the issue for debate rather than to provide fully worked-out legislation for the creation of a proper constitutional court. Nevertheless, the arguments in favour of a special constitutional court are extremely strong. In that respect, I am most grateful for the contributions of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Cooke of Thorndon, with their immense experience of sitting in the highest courts of their respective countries.
I believe that an immensely heavy burden will lie on the senior Law Lord. I saw the present senior Law Lord outside the Chamber; he is not present now. I shall be interested to know what he feels about the burden that will be placed upon him.
It is essential that the court is of the highest standard. When selecting judges to sit on panels, its work must have priority over the ordinary work of the House of Lords and other courts. The senior Law Lord will have to create what is in effect a constitutional court by identifying, from the wide scope offered him by the substantial membership of the Privy Council and those legally qualified to sit on its Judicial Committee, a group of judges who can develop a sense of teamwork and expertise in this field.
In the exercise of those functions, there is no doubt that the senior Law Lord may be exposed to political pressure. For that reason, even if the matter does not go forward on this occasion, I believe that it should be the start of further debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, suggested, leading in the not too distant future to the enactment of legislation providing for a properly chosen constitutional court with proper powers to act as such.
Lord Hutton: My Lords, notwithstanding the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for which I am most grateful, I rise to speak with considerable diffidence. My diffidence arises for a number of reasons. First, it is my maiden speech in your Lordships' House; and that itself is a reason for diffidence. Secondly, I realise that it is somewhat

1975
unusual to make a maiden speech at Report stage. However, the point on which I wish to speak had not arisen at the earlier stages of the Bill. I am grateful for all the helpful indications I have received that it might be permissible for me to speak at this Report stage.
My third reason for diffidence is that it is a Bill relating to Scotland and I, as a former judge in Northern Ireland, am venturing to speak on the amendments. But they relate to a proposed constitutional court of which at least one member will be a Northern Ireland judge, or a former Northern Ireland judge, and there would also be a representative of Northern Ireland on the proposed nominating committee. It would include one person appointed by the presiding officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly, as there would be one person appointed by the presiding officer of the parliament in Edinburgh. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships may feel that it is not inappropriate for me to speak on these amendments.
One of the objectives of the amendments is to ensure that if a devolution issue relating to Scotland becomes the subject of a final appeal from the Inner House of the Court of Session there would be at least one Scottish judge who would sit on the final appellate court. The amendments to the Northern Ireland Bill have the same objective in relation to a Northern Ireland judge.
However, I have a reservation about the proposal in the amendments that there should be a nominating committee which would recommend persons to Her Majesty for appointment to the proposed constitutional court, and in particular about the proposal that one member of that nominating committee would be a person appointed by the presiding officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly. My reservation arises in relation to a point which has already been made tonight by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. He made it during discussions on the Bill on 8th October, col. 618, in relation to whether dissenting opinions on devolution issues should be permitted in the Judicial Committee. The point he made was that devolution issues will be highly political issues when they come before the final court. Of course, devolution issues relating to Northern Ireland will also be highly political.
During the past quarter of a century many cases have come before the High Court and Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland which have had an intensely political background. There was, for example, a case where members of Sinn Fein could sit on local councils at a time when the IRA was conducting a terrorist campaign. But throughout those years, the judges in Northern Ireland strove to remain detached from and above the political frame. I hope, and I believe, that they have largely succeeded in doing so. So far as I am aware, there have never been any serious suggestions that the decisions of the Northern Ireland judges have been influenced by their political views.
I am concerned that if there were to be a nominating committee, particularly if one member were appointed by the presiding officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly, almost inevitably there would be a discussion, which would be bound to become known in the public sphere, about what were believed to be the
1976
political views and leanings of individual judges in a way which has not taken place before. If it were known that certain judges were being considered for appointment to the constitutional court suggestions would no doubt be made that judge A was believed to have nationalist views and judge B was believed to have unionist views. I believe that considerable harm could be done to public confidence in the judiciary—and this is such an important factor—if there were public debate and discussion about the political views of judges, as I believe there would be if a nominating committee were established.
I appreciate the points that have been made tonight by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, about the desirability of a better mechanism for defining the judges who would sit in this final court. I also appreciate the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, that a similar body of judges would be able to develop a system of jurisprudence. However, I wish to raise for consideration the reservation that I mentioned about the risk which I feel would arise from the nominating committee proposed in the amendments.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, it is a privilege to be the first to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, on his maiden speech. In the careful speech which he has just delivered, he has made a valuable contribution to our debates on these important amendments and has well illustrated one of the sensitivities which are undoubtedly involved in setting up a constitutional court of the nature proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his colleagues.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, joined your Lordships' House last year as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary after many years of distinguished service in the legal profession in Northern Ireland, initially as a practising lawyer and then as a judge. Those of us who are aware of the pressures under which judges work need not elaborate on the additional pressures imposed upon judges in Northern Ireland. It is right that we should pay public tribute to the service given by the noble and learned Lord before he became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
Apart from being an able lawyer, the noble and learned Lord is a man of great charm with a wonderful sense of humour. I first came to know him a few years ago when I attended a conference in Athens of chief justices and senior prosecutors from the European Union. We sat for several days in a rather non-descript tourist hotel discussing the issues which one discusses at such conferences: the appointment and sacking of judges, how to combat international crime and so forth. All the time the sun shone and we gazed out of the window to the sea where many of us wished to go and bathe.
Our hosts believed that the conference would benefit from a visit to Delphi. We embarked on the bus to consult the oracle who, as your Lordships will recall, does not always speak in straightforward terms. It was on that trip that the noble and learned Lord came into

1977
his element. He communicated with the guides who showed us around in a most amusing and helpful manner. We all came away much better informed and were very grateful to him. I am sure that he has a great deal to contribute to our future debates on this and other Bills and we look forward to hearing from him frequently.
I turn to the amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. The skill he displayed earlier in the debate reminded me of my first acquaintance with him when we were at school. I hasten to add that I was several years behind him in age. My first recollection of the noble Lord's debating skills was when he took part in a mock election. On that occasion, he was a senior representative of one of the joke parties which were taking part. I am sure that if my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish were present he would observe that some things never change.
It is right that I should recognise that these amendments raise very important issues. The House will welcome the fact that they are being ventilated and we look forward with interest to the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Undoubtedly, the setting up of judicial procedures for the determination of devolution issues under the Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland Bills has been a very important part of this tranche of legislation. It is clear that there is no easy solution to what is the best way to proceed.
I expect that in recent months I have not been alone in having ambivalent views as to whether it should be the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which should have the ultimate say in the resolution of devolution issues. There are arguments in favour of both solutions. Indeed, amendments seeking to change the position were tabled in the Wales Bill and debated at that time. The amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, put forward a third solution and one which undoubtedly merits serious consideration.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, I am not yet convinced that the constitutional court is the correct approach. But I am convinced—and I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, on this—that it is a matter which merits serious consideration. I very much hope that this may be the start of examining the whole issue.
It seems to me that before one establishes any body called a constitutional court a number of issues must be addressed. First, what is to be the totality of its role? Is it merely to deal with devolution issues, or is it to have a final say on human rights issues or other aspects of legal work which could be conveniently and sensibly diverted to that court and taken away from the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House? I do not suggest that there are such issues but I suggest that those matters must be addressed.
Another major aspect to consider is the relationship of such a court with parliament itself. The third major issue is the composition, on which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has touched, as has the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I believe that it would be a serious mistake to set up any body calling itself a constitutional court until
1978
all those issues have been fully addressed. For that reason, on these Benches we could not support the amendments if they are pressed, albeit that we fully support the good sense in raising this as an issue which merits consideration over the next few years.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Hutton on his maiden speech. I am sure that I was not alone in being very impressed by the manner of his delivery and also the great perception which he was able to bring from his unique perspective of the implications of some of the detail of the amendments before us this evening.
I should apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, because I was not here during his introduction to the amendment. I should apologise also to my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce for being invisible to him for, I believe, the second occasion within three weeks of discussion on this Bill.
I speak with the experience of having sat on the Judicial Committee from time to time. Therefore, I shall add one or two observations from, as it were, inside to supplement the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in his more detailed remarks in support of the amendment.
The issues which are behind the amendment are of great importance. I have already drawn attention in my speech on Second Reading to the constitutional significance of the changes which this Bill will bring about. I have no doubt that the judicial aspects of the Bill will have to serve as an anchor for the way in which the whole process of devolution will work itself forward within the framework which has been provided for it by the Bill.
Two points are of great importance in understanding the function which the Judicial Committee or the constitutional court, whatever it is called, will have to perform. One is that among the duties which it is being asked to perform under the Bill as it stands is the duty of preliminary scrutiny provided in Clause 32. My understanding of that measure is that it will provide the only guarantee which can be provided under the devolved structure that a Bill which has been passed by the Scottish parliament will be immune from further attack once it comes into force. It seems to me that that is an extremely important function and it is one which the judicial body may have to perform at very short notice. Therefore, in considering the whole issue, one should bear in mind not simply the matters which may arise under Schedule 6 but also the Clause 32 procedure.
The second point is that, taking the amendment as it is presented to us this evening, for, I believe, very good reasons, the qualifications which are put forward for membership of the constitutional court depend heavily on those judges who are already serving in very senior positions in our system. It seems to me inevitable that the bulk of the membership of a new court as so designed, as is certainly the case in the case of the Judicial Committee, will come from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, who have important functions to perform in your Lordships' House. Other senior judges may

1979
participate, although I rather suspect that if the Lord President of the Court of Session is being asked to be a member of the nominating committee, that disqualifies him from being a member of the constitutional court. That would be a disadvantage which may require further thought.
My experience of working within the body over the past two years has been that one of the strengths of the system from the administrative point of view is the flexibility which exists between the Appellate Committee of this House and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is often necessary at short notice to alter the scheduling of cases which come before your Lordships' House: cases over-run; some cases require to be introduced here as a matter of urgency; and some cases, for some reason, are shorter than has been expected. That phenomenon is present also in the Privy Council as it works at the moment.
I should have thought that it would be inevitable in the new process that matters will require to be decided at short notice by the new body. That seems to me to point strongly in favour of flexibility, using as best one can the administrative processes which we already have to support the existing Judicial Committee in its work.
Without elaborating, I am very much of the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, that this is not the juncture at which one should start to redesign the arrangements which we have for dealing with those extremely important issues. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Steel and Lord Lester, for raising the issue because it certainly needs to be discussed. However, from my point of view, I prefer to leave the existing structures that we have, bearing in mind that time is now very short for us to have the processes in place for the coming into effect of the Bill.
However, one detail has been raised in the early course of this debate by my noble and learned friend Lord Cooke of Thorndon; that is, the issue of Commonwealth judges. There was force in the point that he made that those who have experience elsewhere in the Commonwealth of constitutional and human rights issues have an expertise which may be of value to the Judicial Committee in carrying out the functions which are given to it by the Bill. It seemed to me a pity that they were excluded under the Bill as it stands. Now that the issue has been raised, I warmly support the points which my noble and learned friend made on that issue.
Lord Clyde: My Lords, I add my warmest congratulations to my noble and learned friend Lord Hutton on his maiden speech. What impressed me in particular was the solid contribution which he made with reference to his own experience and the reality of this kind of problem.
I share the attraction, in theory, of the idea of a constitutional court, but I also strongly share the anxiety as to whether the introduction of such an institution is appropriate simply in the context of this Bill and the Scottish problems.
I suggest that one should put the attractive theory into the background and consider immediately the real problems that come from the reality of experience. It
1980
was said that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has a large and amorphous membership. That may be right. But what is the practice? In practice, from my experience I know that the composition is usually five of the Law Lords. As your Lordships are well aware, there are 12 Law Lords and we sit in two committees of five for four days a week. Five of us are in the Privy Council and five of us in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House. There are on occasions—relatively frequent occasions—one other or more rarely two others who help out in the Privy Council. But basically it is the membership from the Law Lords which comprises the present Privy Council.
I say that not with any complaint about the workload which that involves. As your Lordships with a quick understanding of arithmetic will appreciate, two committees of five out of a membership of 12 does not leave much room for manoeuvre, particularly as one of our members is presently engaged elsewhere on an inquiry. But the system works and I should like to think it works well.
What will be essential for the resolution of disputes under this Bill is a speedy and efficient system which can produce solutions and resolve disputes at short notice. If one has an elaborate institution which requires nominations to be made, which requires selections to be made, there will immediately be a practical problem in simply collecting the parties together. Can one be confident at this stage that there will be so much work as to secure that there will be a permanent body sitting week after week on these problems.
There is a second problem and it is as follows. One advantage of the work of the Judicial Committee and the Appellate Committee is that the five members know each other fairly well; get on reasonably well together; and can work together as a group effectively and I hope efficiently. If one is looking to gather individuals who may not be significantly identical for different cases, then one will not get that consistency, that common spirit which is important for the effective working of such a court.
Thirdly, if one is going to start afresh with a new body, we will have to create a secretariat, find premises, find the whole machinery which is required as a back-up. That can be done. It will cost money and it will take time. Fourthly—a point that has already been made—the existing members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have been enabled to acquire some expertise in constitutional matters from cases coming from outside these shores. That is a starting point, at least a base, from which a jurisprudence in the problems that we are now to face can grow.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, complained of the large and amorphous membership. I should like to counter that with an understanding of the reality of practice. He raised the problem of the separation of the powers. Again, one can see the force of that, but it relates principally to the practical problem of selecting the specific individuals who are to sit on the determining tribunal. That was his second point. How does one choose the individuals? That is perhaps at the heart of the whole problem and it is a problem of course which

1981
lies already within the proposed amendment. While the nominating body nominates seven individuals and the quorum is five, who is to identify and choose the five who are to sit. Therefore problems will arise even on this proposal.
In practice one would hope that the system at the moment works reasonably well. It is flexible, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead said, and can cater for last minute emergencies. If it is unacceptable to have one individual making nominations, perhaps the solution would be to provide for some small advisory body which would be available to help out, if that would give a better public image to the critical matter of selection. I suggest that it is in the selection that the heart of the problem may lie.
I am attracted by the idea of a constitutional court, but I believe it is too early.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, for giving way. I wonder whether he appreciates that we are seeking what he is advocating, though perhaps in an over-elaborate way. If one could have an assurance that Law Lords would sit as they do at present in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and that the large, amorphous group of retired and existing members of the English Court of Appeal, for example, would not sit and therefore one would have the seniority and authority which comes from the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee in their present composition, that would go a long way to meeting the point. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord appreciates that that is what we are seeking to achieve rather than some radical reconstruction.
Lord Clyde: My Lords, I certainly understood that the creation of a new court was a bold step forward and, as I said, it is a step I would have some sympathy in supporting in principle. But not yet and not here. In relation to the specific problem of appointment, there is very little in dispute. However, I wonder whether that is best done by one of the instant overnight conventions which are appearing in this new world, rather than by an express legislative provision.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it was a pleasure to listen to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, a highly distinguished former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, during your Lordships' debate on these amendments. We look forward to many contributions from the noble and learned Lord and I am sure that they will be of the same high quality and just as much to the point as his contribution this evening. He has no cause for diffidence, except when making a maiden speech.
The Government cannot accept Amendments Nos. 206 and 202 and the consequential amendments—Amendments Nos. 123 to 202—which would create a constitutional court to carry out the role which the Bill provides for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in determining questions concerning the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament and executive.
1982
The Government came down for the time being, as a matter of policy against a constitutional court in paragraph 2.4 of the White Paper, Rights Brought Home. That was the White Paper which preceded the Human Rights Bill. That Bill is to return to your Lordships' House tomorrow for its closing stages. No amendment to provide for a constitutional court was moved to the Human Rights Bill in the other place or this House.
An amendment for a quite differently appointed and composed constitutional court was sought to be made to the Scotland Bill in another place, but was comprehensively rejected by 388 votes to eight. Amendments of a different nature have now been tabled in this House, not having been tabled in the other place.
Next, the Welsh devolution legislation has already been enacted without any provision for a constitutional court. No amendment was moved to provide for such a court in either House. Under the Government of Wales Act, Schedule 8 paragraph 10, devolution issues go to the Judicial Committee. It is outside the scope of the Scotland Bill to replace those provisions in the Government of Wales Act with provisions for a constitutional court.
The backdrop to this issue is this: the Government are incrementally carrying into effect a major programme of constitutional reform—devolution to Scotland and Wales; the Human Rights Bill; in due course, a freedom of information Bill; the Northern Ireland Bill; and the legislation providing for an elected mayor and assembly for London. It may be that, after all that legislation beds down, longer-term thought should be given to the appropriateness of a specialist constitutional court. So I can be encouraging to that limited extent. But this Bill is not a natural vehicle for that, since policy has been settled for so long and the Welsh ship has left the harbour. If those proposing this amendment will forgive me—although I believe they have already conceded it—what they are really doing is putting down a marker for another day.
The one part of these amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, did not dwell on in detail was how they propose the membership of this new constitutional court is to be determined. Your Lordships should consider the proposal and then consider how well thought out it is.
The amendments propose a nominating committee, consisting of seven senior judges, plus two persons appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons, at least one of whom is to be resident in Wales; one person appointed by the presiding officer in the Scottish parliament; and one person appointed by the presiding officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly. So seven senior judges are to share with four lay people, I assume, the responsibility for nominating. Presumably, it is envisaged that these four will be drawn from the world of politics, and perhaps from the House of Commons, the Scottish parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. So seven senior judges are to share with four politicians—probably party politicians—the responsibility for appointing a nine person constitutional court, consisting of a president and eight other members, who shall be Lords of Appeal in Ordinary or hold other high judicial office.

1983
This raises for consideration whether four party politicians should share equally with seven of the most senior judges in the United Kingdom responsibility for appointing the new constitutional court. That prompts the question: why should four politicians participate in this function with the higher judiciary? What is the purpose of their involvement? My present view, which I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, expressed, is that this proposal carries with it a great danger.
It would appear that an important consideration in making recommendations for appointments to this new court would be the political attitude or outlook of those to be nominated. I am not persuaded by anything that I have heard in the debate today that it would be appropriate to involve politicians with the higher judiciary in a process for the recommendation to Her Majesty of those to appoint to the proposed constitutional court. It would fuel a perception that those appointed might not decide these cases strictly according to law because each had to pass some test of suitability on political grounds. This perception would be the stronger because only Lords of Appeal in Ordinary or those holding high judicial office can qualify under the amendments. So on what basis are party politicians to assess who among them are suitable for this role? What role could politicians rationally have in choosing among very senior judges unless to exercise some politically-based judgment on their comparative merits?
7.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving way. I wonder whether he is aware that, first, the amendment does not require politicians but only persons who are nominated. They do not need to be politicians. For example, they could be the Chairman of the Bar Council at the time. Secondly, is the noble and learned Lord also aware that these arrangements involve a much smaller political element than any of the arrangements of Commonwealth constitutional courts in countries like South Africa or Canada or the great constitutional courts of Europe, such as the German, French and Italian courts? Is he aware that they are much more modest, with a very small input of people appointed by politicians, in order to do the appointing?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with great respect, it appears to me in the highest degree probable as regards the nature of the officers of the parliament and the assembly who will be in a position to nominate the lay persons that in practice they will be party politicians.
On this aspect of the matter I agree with the short speech made at the outset of this debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. It is a curious notion that members of the nominating committee should be able to nominate themselves. Surely they must be able to do so because it would be odd in the extreme, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, if they were to be excluded. It would be even more odd if politicians are sitting with them on the same nominating committee assessing the respective
1984
merits for appointment to the constitutional court of their judicial colleagues on the nominating committee. I suggest that more considered thought needs to be given to these amendments.
Since we are laying down markers, I do not favour the proposal that the court should be in some sense geographically balanced, so that no fewer than four of the judges shall be from England and Wales, no fewer than two Scottish and no fewer than one Northern Irish. This kind of provision requires careful thought because it suggests that the geographical origins of the judges may affect their judicial decisions—a suggestion that might well be made in a contentious devolution vires case but which must not be accepted. Judges decide according to law, uninfluenced by whether they come from the legal system of England and Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.
My view is that, certainly for the present, we stick with the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee can draw on eminent judicial figures from those who hold or have held the office of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary or other high judicial office in the United Kingdom. I can confirm that in practice it would be the senior Law Lord who would decide on the composition of the Judicial Committee in these cases; and he would have the broadest range of judicial experience from which to choose. We would expect a convention to develop along the lines of Scottish civil appeals to the House of Lords where there would always be at least one Scottish judge—and in practice perhaps more—sitting on the Judicial Committee for Scottish devolution cases.
I turn to Amendment No. 196. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is seeking to establish what my role, and that of my predecessors and successors, will be in devolution cases. As regards Amendment No. 206 I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that no past or present Lord Chancellor may sit on the proposed constitutional court. When exercising their judicial functions as head of the judiciary, Lord Chancellors are bound by their judicial oath in the same manner as every other judge. Where cases come to the Judicial Committee under the devolution legislation I will exercise my discretion not to sit where I consider it would be inappropriate to do so. I have no doubt that any future Lord Chancellor would decide likewise.
It could perfectly well be that my decision would be that it is inappropriate for me to sit in every such case. But I do not believe that it is desirable to lay down rigid rules. Any Lord Chancellor would follow this sensible course where, for example, there is a dispute between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish executive.
However, I do not accept in the present state of the debate at any rate that there is a category of case, even if it could be adequately defined, to be called constitutional which should be out of bounds for the Lord Chancellor when he sits as the head of the judiciary. There are many criminal cases which can be said to have a constitutional element, but frequently Lord Chancellors sit on them. Equally, Lord Chancellors often sit in tax appeals which are important disputes

1985
between the citizen and the state. It is not our way to lay down rigid rules fettering discretion in the decision whether it is appropriate to sit in particular cases. These decisions must be taken case by case.
So I cannot advise your Lordships to accept these amendments. We should stick for the time being with the Judicial Committee. It has a long history of dealing with cases and appeals of a constitutional character from the Commonwealth. I agree, therefore, with the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that the time for these amendments has certainly not yet come. With the greatest of respect to the proposers of these amendments, I suggest that they need much more considered thought and to be revisited on another occasion. Meanwhile, I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, to seek your Lordships' leave to withdraw Amendment No. 123.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I am most grateful to all who have participated in this debate. I reiterate that our purpose in tabling the amendment was precisely to ensure that we should have for the first time a thorough debate on the proper constitutional and legal arrangements to put in place in our country post the devolution settlements. This debate has admirably achieved its purpose—and I say that without any intention of seeking to press the amendment to a Division.
Indeed, I am heartened by the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor used the phrase "for the time being". In a strange way, that echoes what the Scottish Constitutional Convention said on the issue. It stated:
"The Act shall make provision for the settlement of disputes as to the relative powers of the UK and the Scottish Parliaments … an existing body shall be used in the first instance with options including the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council".
So even as far back as the deliberations of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, we were imagining that we might well be saddled with the existing arrangements for some time to come. The Lord Chancellor is correct that as the new bodies—the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh assembly and the Scottish parliament—bed down, this subject will have to return to the agenda.
As has been said, we are seriously proposing a major series of constitutional reforms at the tail end of the 21st century and yet overlaying them with a system of appeal established well before the end of the last century. That seems a strange way to proceed. So, I have no doubt that this House and other organisations will return to this issue.
It is the case—I have experienced this on my travels in some parts of the Commonwealth—that some countries question the continuing role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in dealing with appeals from sovereign jurisdictions elsewhere. I believe that even the Judicial Committee will probably want to consider its own future in the longer term.
I said in my opening speech that I had never met the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I should have made it clear that I have met many members of the Judicial Committee. Indeed, we were glad to hear from
1986
some in this debate. In particular, like others, I pay tribute to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, who is among the several who have made criticisms of the proposals for the nominating committee. It was an initial attempt to put forward proposals to form the basis of discussions, but we must take on board the criticisms that have been made of the nominating procedure. We shall give further thought to that before resurrecting these proposals on any future occasion.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, mentioned lack of premises, but I see no reason why the new constitutional court could not simply use the facilities which already exist for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Perhaps I may make three final points. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will have noticed that I did not append my name to Amendment No. 196. That was because, like the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, I believe in keeping in with the Lord Chancellor! Nevertheless, my noble friend Lord Lester put forward a perfectly good argument for further discussion of the role of the Lord Chancellor in these proceedings.
Perhaps I may make a more serious point. One point that has not really been answered was that made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, who asked why, in continuing to use the existing procedures, we should exclude judges from the Commonwealth, as the Bill suggests. I believe that we should revisit that point later. It may be helpful if I indicate to the House that we have already decided to table an amendment to Clause 96 to allow us to concentrate on that issue, perhaps next week when we reach that point in the Bill.
Finally, I only hope that as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor used the phrase "for the time being", he might agree that the time has come when perhaps he and others involved should consult senior judges and representatives of the profession in all four parts of the United Kingdom about long-term constitutional developments. This debate should be seen simply as a curtain-raiser to what should be a serious ongoing debate about the future nature of our constitutional arrangements. The debate has amply served its purpose. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until not before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

The Utilities
7.45 p.m.
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to modernise the regulation of the utility industries so as to provide a fair deal for consumers in general and vulnerable consumers in particular.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may first express my delight at the fact that so many of my noble friends have agreed to take part in this debate. In addition to welcoming them, I welcome also the maiden speech that we are to hear shortly from the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. We look forward to hearing her with great interest. I should add that I must declare an interest in that I am a non-executive director of Three Valleys Water.
In my party's 1997 election manifesto we said in relation to the utility industries:
"we will promote competition wherever possible. Where competition is not an effective discipline … we will pursue tough effective regulation in the interests of customers".
Within a year of the election the Government published a comprehensive consultation paper directed at modernising the framework of utility regulation and enhanced the ability of regulators to promote competition along with the Director-General of Fair Trading through the Competition Bill, which is about to receive Royal Assent.
The Green Paper on utility regulation, which was published in March, and the White Paper, which was published in July, took as a starting point the competition that has been developing in the gas and electricity industries in particular. To a large extent, customers of both industries will in future be protected by competition from any exploitation rather than by regulation, although trading standards officers and others will need to be vigilant in various parts of our country to ensure that firms compete fairly and do not engage in misleading or confusing consumers. There have been some examples of that. I expect that we can all agree that firms should give customers clear information so that they can make sensible, intelligent choices as to supplier.
Moreover, there are certain parts of the industries to which I refer, particularly in what perhaps I may call "pipes and transmission", that will remain natural monopolies. They will require price regulation. Regulation will also be needed to ensure adequacy and certainty of supply, matters which a whole succession of consumer surveys have shown are high priorities among consumers. Regulation is also needed to ensure adequate long-term investment for the consumers of the future and for such other objectives as energy conservation and equity between different categories of customer. Domestic customers, for example, should not have to pay the costs of discounts given to attract the custom of large industrial concerns.
I have mentioned "vulnerable consumers"—one might say "disadvantaged consumers"—specifically in my Unstarred Question because if we were to follow the pure model of competition, prices would simply reflect costs—and it often costs more to supply disadvantaged consumers. I welcome the proposed new duty on regulators, which is set out in the White Paper, to have regard to ministerial guidance on social and environmental objectives.
The utilities provide essential services to the public, so it is surely a clear requirement of social justice that the Government should redress the balance when, as
1988
they admit in paragraph 58 of the White Paper is happening, wide tariff differentials may mean that the benefits of competition may not be being enjoyed fairly by all.
I expect that my noble friend Lord Islwyn will refer to the way in which standing charges can impinge unfairly on small users.
Since the White Paper was published the proposal to merge Ofgas and the electricity regulator Offer has been taken further with the announcement of the appointment of Mr. Callum McArthy to head the new body. That is an imaginative appointment with someone of substantial and relevant experience in the public and private sectors.
The structural change which many of us have argued for is a change to get away from the situation in which the one man or one woman regulator faces the chairman or chief executive of a powerful company. Sometimes there has been undue personal confrontation between individuals. I am glad, therefore, that the energy and telecommunications regulators are, in each case, to comprise in future a small board of three—a chair and two others. Decision making will then be shared, the regulator will have greater authority and there will be a check on the waywardness or awkwardness of individuals.
I am left in the dark as to what is to happen to the water regulator Ofwat. I know that that is not the responsibility of my noble friend the Minister and his department and that he may not be able to say what is to happen to Ofwat.
One utility company that currently embraces both electricity and water called Hyder had the bright idea during the consultation period of asking the former Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, to give an independent view on the Green Paper and on the structural matters. He made the point that shared decision-making, as he had known it in the Court of Appeal and industrial tribunals, was a good deal better than having to make a decision oneself when the only people you could discuss them with were staff and not with equals.
Putting another hat on for a moment, as a vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, I feel that there ought to be a positive role in the regulatory process for the local authority trading standards officers. They are professionals in detecting trading malpractice and market failures and could be very useful as the eyes and ears of the national regulatory bodies which only have centralised offices. They also have the advantage of democratic legitimacy, being responsible and accountable to local councils.
In the main, I welcome what is said in the White Paper about consumer councils and the special remit they are to be given in the interests of disadvantaged consumers. As the White Paper says, they should be "powerful consumer advocates" at the heart of the regulatory system but, nonetheless, to one side or independent of it.
I have one doubt that I must put to my noble friend the Minister. I do not think that the role of consumer councils as consumer advocates sits frightfully well with the handling of individual consumer complaints. As the

1989
DTI has just issued a further consultation paper specifically on consumer councils, may I seek to influence Government thinking and propose that provision be made in the forthcoming Bill for the possibility of introducing an ombudsman system, organised to be independent of both suppliers and consumers. It would be helpful to set up an independent ombudsman scheme to handle the more intractable consumer complaints, with power to award compensation. Ombudsman schemes in the private sector have been very successful in recent years in providing low-cost and trusted dispute settlement machinery. That view is accepted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in the civil justice review, and accepted by the Treasury in its recently published draft Financial Services and Markets Bill.
It would be unfortunate if the matter is left out from the forthcoming legislation on utilities regulation. It is very unlikely that amending legislation would ever be a high priority. Why not provide for it in the Bill, with the timing of implementation left to Ministers?
7.55 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to begin by saying how I, as a newcomer to your Lordships' House, have appreciated the warmth and kindness that has been shown to me by everyone during this last week. Your Lordships and the Officers of the House have made me feel most welcome. I am most grateful to you all and honoured to be speaking for the first time in this great Chamber.
Two years ago I was a member of the commission set up by the Hansard Society to look into the regulation of public utilities. Its report was debated in this House in February 1997. I am delighted that it has been followed by a Green Paper and a White Paper. I am pleased that those two documents have followed so closely the recommendations made by the Hansard Society.
In particular, I welcome the Government's commitment to issue separate guidance on social and environmental objectives, and that they propose to introduce a new primary objective for regulators of protecting the interests of consumers.
I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for introducing the subject this evening. It is a most important subject. We ought to give greater consideration to the interests of consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers. I would make three points on that subject.
First, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has suggested, in current legislation and Government thinking there is the notion that when competition is fully developed there is less need for the regulator, that the consumer will be adequately protected by general competition law. Certainly the consumer is benefiting at the moment from the lower prices that, generally speaking, competition is bringing. But competition is also bringing, by every post, a plethora of offers, claims and counter claims from the utilities. It is the well-informed consumer who benefits, but at present it is quite difficult to be well informed.
1990
It seems to me that two steps need to be taken. First, the regulator should ensure that the data provided by competing utilities can be easily compared and understood, just as, for example, car manufacturers are required to produce a common set of performance data for motor cars. Secondly, the statutory consumer bodies which are to be set up need to make sure that the data are widely available and in an understandable form.
My second point is to reiterate that to date, while competition has brought great benefit, the benefits are greater to the better off than to the less well off. As the noble Lord, Lord Borne, has already stressed, the financial disadvantages imposed on those who cannot pay by direct debit are fairly considerable. For example, with a pre-payment meter you are paying £25 a year more for your electricity and £50 a year more for your gas than others. There are 3.5 million households paying for their gas and electricity by pre-payment meter. That is approximately 20 per cent. of the households in this country.
It is not merely the extra costs that we should be concerned about but the inconvenience. I know of several elderly people who live in villages around Guildford, where I live, who have to come into Guildford by bus in order to top up their "smart card" for their pre-payment meters. Recently the in-town electricity showroom was closed down. That meant an additional bus journey to the out-of-town showroom in order to top up their cards. Fortunately, additional payment points have been opened in the middle of town, but the message is clear. If you do not have a car, the bus journey alone will cost £3 or £4. Who do the companies expect to make these journeys? Disproportionately, it is the old, the infirm and the young mums with kids. I do not think it is right and I hope that the Minister can assure us that something will be done.
Finally, I should like to say a word about the situation in relation to water, which to date has been expressly excluded from the Government's proposals. Although it has been privatised, the domestic water industry remains, and is likely to remain, a monopoly utility. As consumers, we have little choice but to accept and pay the bills we receive. The situation in this industry is very unsatisfactory. There have been relatively few meters installed and most bills are still based on the old, outdated rateable values. Most bills have increased very considerably. The average bill before privatisation was about £2 a week. It is now £5 a week on average and in the south west consumers pay more than £7 a week. There are many elderly people, living on their own, taking few baths, not running washing machines or dishwashers and not using garden hoses, who just cannot understand why their bills are so high. The notional sum allowed in income support is only £3 a week. Once again, it is those who can least afford it who have been hit hardest.
As I have said, I welcome the new emphasis to be given by the utility regulators to the interests of consumers. I believe it is a move in the right direction. But I believe that there are still many unanswered questions as to how, in the utilities sector, we can square competition with compassion.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, on her maiden speech. One of the strengths of your Lordships' House is its pool of special knowledge. The noble Baroness will considerably add to it. She is an eminent teacher and researcher in economics, specialising in science, technology and innovation policy, subjects central to our competitiveness. From her concern for the vulnerable, we can see that she obviously knows about practical matters, too, so we certainly look forward to hearing her on many other occasions.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Borrie on his timing. He has introduced this debate during the consultation period on the Government's proposals for setting up independent consumer councils for the different utilities. I hope the Minister will consider that this debate is part of that consultation. Quite rightly, my noble friend is concerned about a fair deal for consumers. He has a distinguished record of concern for consumers. But I believe that when consumers become valued customers, the balance swings in the consumer's favour. It is then that consumers will get the fair deal that my noble friend calls for.
The answer of course lies in competition because competition changes the way companies behave. It changes consumers into customers. However, competition in energy is still at an early stage and for the small consumer competition is non-existent in water and sewerage. So while competition is developing, there must be a modern regulator to look after the consumer, to see that prices are reasonable, to see that the service is reliable and that supply is consistent.
Of course, price used to be very simple, but it is now much more complicated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, explained. I suspect that the first task of the proposed consumer councils will be to inform consumers on matters of price and to sort out the competing claims, of which the noble Baroness spoke.
My noble friend Lord Borrie is concerned about vulnerable consumers. He is right. The vast majority of vulnerable consumers are on low incomes, yet they seem to pay the highest price, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, told us. It is usually because they have pre-payment meters. This has always been a mystery to me. In every other business, customers who pay in advance pay the lowest price because there is no credit risk. So instead of paying more, those with pre-payment meters should be paying less. We do not know why they pay more as the whole matter is shrouded in commercial secrecy. Contrast that with the transparency in the United States where an organisation looking after the interests of consumers would be able to see the financial data justifying the higher costs. That does not seem to have harmed competition in America. I hope that the consumer councils will have the same facilities.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, I have to remind noble Lords that when "three" comes up on the clock it is actually the end of the three-minute time allotted to speakers.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, as privatisation of water approached, I well remember a conversation I had with one of the leaders in the Yorkshire water industry. He assured me that when it was privatised it would become owned by the people of Yorkshire. I demurred. A little later, when there was an attempt to secure the election to the board of a responsible Yorkshire lady—not of our political persuasion—Yorkshire shareholders voted for that lady but she was wiped out by the votes of the institutions.
That they were not locally based was quite evident when Yorkshire Water refused to allow in three cases, in my then constituency, work to be carried out to relieve the problem of people who were having to live with sewage contamination. When I went to do a broadcast on this matter the spokesman for Yorkshire Water said that the regulator was at fault because the regulator would not let them spend any money on it. The fact remains—Yorkshire Water did not apologise for the misdirection of the Yorkshire people—that the regulator had said, "You cannot increase your prices. Your profits are so high that you can meet needs of that urgent kind from your existing profits".
As far as concerns electricity, the Government took the view that the regulator would protect the consumer. The regulator was principally responsible for the achievement of an incomprehensible pricing system. I recall asking him a question about the disregard of the fact that coal for electricity generated at coal-fired stations was a good deal cheaper than that from the new gas-powered stations and not getting an answer.
The worst situation was in the gas industry. Sir Denis Rooke, one of the most successful people in the utilities during the post-war period, could live with a very fine structure—a complex structure—of gas consumer protection and with a large number of showrooms, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, properly referred. When the previous Conservative administration came in and said that they would privatise gas they proposed to dismantle the structure. I was on the committee dealing with the Bill. The Government were proposing to call it the Gas Users' Council. I said that it would become known as GUC, which was an ugly term, and proposed instead that it should become the Gas Users' National Organisation. The Minister appeared very keen to accept my suggestion until I pointed out that it would become known as "Guano" instead.
The industry should be robust enough, as gas had been robust, to live with a proper structure of consumer protection and to live with a care for the poorest in the land and with a care for the disabled. Noble Lords will have seen the documents and briefings which we have received. I hope that they will receive adequate attention.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I congratulate my long time friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She has lived up to all our expectations by delivering on behalf of consumers a powerful and carefully researched speech on competition policy.

1993
Because time is short this evening I shall make but three quick points. As the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Borne indicated, price may fall in competition but price is not everything. When we buy any product of a utility we buy a whole what I call vector of characteristics. One of the things that the noble Baroness pointed out was that consumers pay a price over and above the price charged for the gas. For example, if I pay in advance or if I pay by standing order I am giving a loan to the utility. Indeed, I have given incredible amounts of money to British Telecom. I do not know why I do so. However, there is an implicit price which is larger than the price paid.
We ought to look at all the implicit and explicit prices paid by consumers. This is where most particularly the price paid by the vulnerable consumers, especially the blind, comes into the equation. What are the utilities doing to lower the extra price paid by the blind? Are the latter getting the sort of information which will help them so that they will not end up paying a higher price than ordinary well sighted consumers pay?
My noble friend Lord Borne is entirely correct to point out that if the utilities give business accounts a discount they should not, as it were, charge domestic consumers much more. But just as there is a principle of cross-subsidy among business consumers—because that is how the discount for large volumes works—I believe that they ought to cross-subsidise among consumers, especially the more vulnerable ones; indeed, I think that they should forgo some part of the profit. I believe that that would help.
I have one final point to make. I believe that eventually we will have to have a much more co-ordinated regulatory system across the different utilities. However, tonight is not the time to talk about it.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on initiating this debate on a most worthwhile subject, though it is a pity that it is such a short debate. Nevertheless, my thoughts turn to the so-called "fat cats"—and what a horrible expression that is. I have in mind Sir Peter Bonham who is British Telecom's chief executive. His pay rocketed by 46 per cent. to more than £1 million last year and—wait for it!—he also had £1.5 million in bonuses.
Moreover, at Centrica the chief executive, Roy Gardener, earned a package of £493,000. His counterpart at British Gas, David Varney, got over £427,000, which was a 74 per cent. increase. At Southern Electric, Jim Forbes, the chief executive, earned £399,000 last year, which represented an increase of 45 per cent. Then there is that prime success story of privatisation, Yorkshire Water, where we find its chief executive, Mr. Keith Bond, a former police constable, received a 69 per cent. increase that took his salary to £298,000. Indeed, I could go on through a whole list of bosses who have simply abused the system. What an example that is to lower paid workers. We should also remember that all this is taking place as a result of what the late Lord Stockton (Mr. Harold Macmillan) described as the sale of the family silver.
1994
Overall, in this issue which my noble friend Lord Borne has described as a fair deal for consumers, I think particularly of less well-off pensioners and the way that they were treated by the last government. In the early days of that administration a decision was taken to alter the method of calculating the state pension. The dual assessment based upon inflation and average earnings was terminated and annual increases were subsequently based on the inflation rate alone. That change brought about a considerable loss of income for pensioners, especially those who tended to rely on state provision. I shall give your Lordships details as supplied to me by the Library of the House. The single state pension of £64.70 in April 1988 would have been £87.79 if it had risen in line with average earnings since 1979. That is a difference today of £23.9p per week. That figure clearly illustrates that pensioners have a genuine cause for grievance.
That leads me to another aspect which is highly relevant to our debate; namely, the fact that pensioners have to pay the standing charges to the former public utilities. I tabled a Question last Wednesday about this issue but I received a negative reply from the Government. I was most disappointed about it. The people, and pensioners in particular, expect a better deal from a Labour Government.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, I should, first, declare an interest as a consultant recently for Thames Water and as an unpaid adviser to the recent Offer/DTI review of the wholesale trading arrangements for electricity. I welcome this brief debate and I also welcome government policy towards regulation as it is evolving. I think it is right, wherever possible, to promote competition, not simply because of the price benefits that competition brings but also because competition is a major spur to innovation. We have seen that in telecoms and I believe that we will be surprised at the degree of innovation that we see in gas and electricity as competition spreads. I believe that that will be a major benefit to consumers.
However, we also have to recognise that there are limitations on competition. In particular, if we have the wrong industrial structure the competition will not necessarily deliver the right outcomes. If we look at the market in power generation we see that particular problem. It is one of the reasons why coal has been disadvantaged in the trading arrangements for electricity in the recent past. I therefore welcome the Government's commitment in principle to carrying out the reform and dismantling of the electricity pool and to the divestment of coal-fire generation capacity by some of the large generators.
The other area where competition may not bring the right outcome is for disadvantaged consumers, as my noble friend Lord Borne highlighted. Competition involves the unwinding of cross subsidies and that, in an industry where fixed costs are high, can mean that the poor—the low volume consumers—miss out. There are answers to that and they are ones which have been flagged by the Government. In particular, it is possible to use the regulated monopoly pipe or wires business—

1995
for example, Transco or the National Grid—to effect and to have cross subsidies which help the disadvantaged relative to the more advantaged consumers. That is the direction in which we should seek the answer. We must ensure that any intervention in that area is not such as to inhibit competition, because the latter is the key.
In conclusion, in looking forward I think that we may be entering an era where the "fat cat" problem—the excessive profits that we have been concerned with and the need for the windfall tax—is something of the past. Regulators have got better at their job and they are regulating in a much tougher way. I fear that some of the regulatory assumptions that have fed into regulatory decisions on the cost of capital may be over tough on the regulated companies, especially in view of the disturbances in the financial markets that we have recently seen. Indeed, this is a matter to which we shall have to return.
8.18 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a director of an interactive television company which currently provides pilot services in Hull and London on the networks, respectively, of Kingston Communications and British Telecom, which are both regulated by Oftel. I, too, welcome the Green Paper and the White Paper issued by the DTI which recognise the need for a comprehensive review of utility regulation and the consultation document Regulating Communications issued in July.
The privatisation programme of the 1980s and the early 1990s conducted by the last government gave rise to a first generation of regulation and regulators which has increasingly been showing both its age and its mixed origins. While it is now broadly recognised on all sides of the House that the privatisation of at least some of the utilities has produced significant benefits, we equally can see that the priorities of the last government were not exclusively—or even primarily—the protection of the consumer: it is clear that the regulatory regimes in some cases were set to assist in the successful privatisation of the utilities concerned and in the satisfaction of objectives ranging from the management of the PSBR to the attempted stimulus of wider share ownership.
That is now history and it is time for a new generation of regulation to supersede the old, and in the words of the Green Paper,
"a determination to ensure that the regulatory regime serves the needs of consumers",
is therefore strongly to be welcomed, as will be legislation to place a primary duty on the regulators to protect the interests of consumers. I look forward with high hopes to what my noble friend the Minister will say on this and other issues raised in a few minutes.
I shall use the short time that remains to me briefly to address the complex area of telecommunications regulations. I hope that there might be another occasion when rather more time will be available for a debate on this subject, perhaps when the Government have been
1996
able to digest the responses to the consultation paper, Regulating Communications: Approaching Convergence in the Information Age.
While I do not pretend that communications are quite the lifeblood of consumers that water or power are, the burgeoning role of telecommunications networks in providing information, education and entertainment, in addition to voice communications, makes a dynamic and competitive telecommunications industry vital.
The decision to license cable operators for both television and telephony services has, at great financial and environmental cost, provided competition in local network provision, in parallel with that in trunk and business networks. I hope that in future there will be increased emphasis on the promotion of competition in service provision, and that the sunk cost of competing physical networks will not be allowed ironically to keep prices higher for consumers.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in the debate on the Competition Bill the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, said that he wanted to leave open the question of whether the sectoral regulators or the Director General of Fair Trading should enforce the competition prohibitions. In a recent publication by the Office of Fair Trading in paragraph 4.4 we find the director general saying,
"Unless there are reasons for doing otherwise, the relevant regulator, rather than the Director General of Fair Trading, will apply the prohibitions in the Act when they relate to arrangements or conduct falling within his sector".
I urge the Minister, who is one of those responsible for the utilities review, to reject that philosophy. His own Government have said on several occasions that the Competition Bill is about applying uniform principles across the board. Only recently in your Lordships' House the Government were at pains, when rejecting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on predatory pricing, to say that the Competition Bill was not intended to be sector specialist—in that case, in relation to the media.
There are two additional reasons why I think the Minister should be extremely wary of following the proposal of the Office of Fair Trading. The first is that competition in each of the regulators' sectors means something quite different from competition in the Bill. Competition in the Bill is about looking ex post at a particular anti-competitive situation. Competition to a regulator is about confronting an initial monopoly or oligopoly and out of that situation, in a dynamic way, creating a competitive situation. It is not the same thing at all as competition under the Bill. There is a real danger, if the regulator exercises as a matter of practice competition powers under the Bill, that he will confuse that notion of competition with a notion of competition contained in his own regulatory Act.
The second reason why, in my submission, it would be inappropriate for the regulator to have these powers is that he has many other considerations to look at as well. He must consider the interest of the consumer, the environmental picture and the social dimension. All

1997
these things have to be factored in to his own regulatory decisions. Competition, on top of that, would be compromised.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on introducing this debate. It is a particular pleasure for me to be able to congratulate my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford on her maiden speech. We on these Benches are particularly pleased to have the benefit of her expertise and experience. I am sure noble Lords will agree that these abilities and qualities will be of tremendous benefit to the House as a whole in the months and years ahead.
For many vulnerable people in this country, particularly pensioners, the utilities play a peculiarly large part in their lives. A large proportion of the post they receive is from the utilities and a large proportion of the regular payments they have to make is to utilities. Therefore this is a particularly important area to be discussing. A number of noble Lords have discussed problems which currently apply, not least high costs of standing charges and the problems of the high cost of prepayment meters.
I wish to refer to the problems which arise when faults occur in the utilities provided in the home. I know of a case of an elderly, partially sighted lady who discovered when she was having her water meter read that a large volume of water was flowing through even though all the taps were closed. This meant that there was a leak somewhere. The meter reader said, "I do not recommend that we fix this for you as it will cost you far too much. You ought to find your own plumber". That statement was deeply disturbing to the lady. She wanted someone from the utility to solve the problem rather than have to find someone from outside. The situation was already stressful for her in that she had discovered a water leak and she then had the additional problem of having to find someone to put it right.
I believe that similar cases occur in the gas industry as regards the restricted role of Transco in tackling gas leaks. One then has to get another specialist to deal with a leak. This area needs to be given further consideration. We therefore welcome the Government's commitment to issue statutory guidance on social objectives and environmental objectives. We on these Benches would prefer the environmental objectives to be given rather more significance, but we believe that this is a great step forward. We welcome anything the Minister can say this evening either on the timetable for the issuing of such guidance or on consultation which may take place between now and the guidance being issued.
As regards consumer councils, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about separating individual complaints and general policy issues. One finds that people in the legal field deal with individual miscarriages of justice and reform of the criminal law more generally. Experience in one area informs experience in the other area and gives great
1998
strength to what they do. We support the principle of statutory consumer councils and look forward to seeing that enacted.
8.27 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for posing this Unstarred Question tonight. The House is indeed fortunate to have his services. I have only three minutes so I will have to be to the point. I wish I had longer to respond to the various points that noble Lords have made.
I am not supposed to do this but I would like to note the quality of the maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She made the interesting point that better-off consumers are well informed, more sophisticated and can take advantage of direct debit schemes. She also talked of the problems of pre-payment meters. I hope that eventually technology will help vulnerable consumers as well as those who are better off. I also welcome the Minister's first substantial speech from the Government's Dispatch Box. I am sure that in the future we shall have many interesting discussions on the Government's energy policy.
The role of utility regulation is to promote fair competition while at the same time protecting the interests of consumers in both the long and short term. Since privatisation we have seen greatly improved efficiency in the utilities which has been achieved through the rp-x formula. However, there is also a need for regulatory efficiency. That means that the Minister will have to strike the balance between short-term consumer benefit on the one hand and an over-demanding regulatory regime on the other, the latter being detrimental to future investment plans in the utilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, effectively drew attention to vulnerable consumers. I am sure that the Minister would agree with Ian Byatt that any measure that results in lower bills for some consumers will have to be funded by higher bills for others.
Perhaps I can tempt the Minister a little further. Does he agree that the provision of an adequate income for vulnerable consumers is a responsibility of the welfare system, and that of energy efficiency a part of taxation and housing policy? Therefore, although I accept that the utilities may have an input in these matters, is it really the role of a commercial concern to act as a welfare organisation? On the other hand, good business practice would suggest compassion in cases of genuine hardship.
We shall have to study today's Statement to see whether it can help. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to social justice, and I agree with his sentiments. Put simply, we need to move towards eliminating vulnerable consumers as much as we can.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, also spoke about the increased power of consumer councils. Will the Minister say how that will work? Will it not interfere with the duties of the regulator, who should regard the long-term interests of the consumer as paramount?

1999
In the longer term, we on these Benches hope to see fully developed competition in all the utilities. We are practically there with telecommunications. When effective competition is fully developed, we hope to see industry-specific regulation become unnecessary and reliance being placed solely on general competition law.
8.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Borrie for raising this important topic and for his thoughtful contribution to the debate. All those who have had contact with him when he was Director-General of Fair Trading, or in this House, know that he is not only a great expert on regulation, but also a fierce and effective champion of the consumer.
I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on an outstanding maiden speech. I know she has great knowledge of the economics of science, technology and innovation and, as Minister for Science, I look forward to listening to many more illuminating speeches from her.
I should also like to say to my noble friend Lord Haskel that we will, of course, consider the debate as part of the consultations on the Government's proposals for setting up independent consumer councils for the different utilities.
Water, energy and telecommunications are among the essentials of everyday life, and the public have a right to an efficient supply of these services, on fair terms. That is why the Government published a Green Paper on utilities regulation earlier this year. The Government's subsequent response to consultation set out three overall objectives for reform. We want to secure a fair deal for all consumers, including the disadvantaged. We want to create a regulatory framework which looks ahead to the next decade, in a world where competition is growing, convergence issues are arising, and multi-utility companies are emerging. And we want to create a climate in which the utility companies can innovate and improve efficiency wherever possible by ensuring that regulation is transparent, predictable and accountable.
The Government have set out a large number of proposals for reform to help achieve the overriding objectives that we have set. I want, however, in the time available, to focus on government plans which are aimed most directly at our objective of securing a better deal for consumers, and the disadvantaged in particular.
I should like to deal with three key changes which are aimed at giving all consumers a fairer deal. First, the Government propose that there should be a new primary duty on the regulators to protect and promote the interests of consumers wherever possible through promoting competition. The regulators' existing consumer duties are secondary duties. The Government believe that, when making decisions, the regulators must put the needs of consumers first.
Secondly, the Government intend to establish consumer councils for each of the utilities on a fully independent and statutory basis. That is a key consideration which will deal with many of the concerns
2000
that have arisen in the debate. We envisage the councils playing a key role in articulating a strategic, independent view of consumer interests to the regulators, companies, Parliament and the media. They will have statutory rights to be consulted by the regulator on key decisions affecting the consumer interest, and will have responsibility for handling complaints when those are not resolved by the utility companies. They will provide a one-stop shop for consumer complaints against the utilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, mentioned the incompatibility, as he saw it, of the advocacy role with the role of handling complaints. I wish to make clear that our proposals do not involve consumer councils taking on a formal educational role in these matters. Licence enforcement action will remain a matter for the regulator. However, there are examples in the water sector where companies have entered into voluntary agreements with customer service committees whereby the companies will accept a committee's adjudication. We want to encourage those developments.
However, I have taken note of the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, of providing a formal ombudsman scheme in the legislation. My department is currently consulting on the detailed arrangements for establishing the new councils. We plan to announce the outcome of that consultation as soon as possible following the 16th November closing date for responses.
A third measure for strengthening the position of consumers is our plans to ensure that all the regulators have powers of the type already held by the gas regulator to impose financial penalties on companies for breach of overall and individual customer service standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, raised the question of high pay for executives in the utilities. It is not for the Government to set executives' pay. However, we plan to encourage stronger links between customer service standards, price gaps and directors' pay. We shall, for example, be urging regulators to take account of levels of consumer service and satisfaction when setting new price caps. Moreover, we intend to legislate to require price-regulated utility companies to disclose the nature of any links between the pay of the directors of the regulated business and the service standards attained by that business, and if there is no link, to make that fact known.
In addition to these and other measures to help all consumers get a fair deal, the Government are particularly concerned about the position of the disadvantaged. Fuel poverty is a major issue. The liberalisation of energy markets has delivered real benefits to all consumers in lower prices, but there have been concerns that the disadvantaged may have benefited less than other consumers. The Gas Consumers Council and other organisations have been vocal in articulating the needs and concerns of disadvantaged consumers in competitive markets. There are concerns, for example, that the gap between prepayment meter tariffs and direct debit tariffs could become unacceptably large. We are alert to these problems, and have announced plans to ensure that the regulatory system is equipped to deal with them.

2001
I want to refer to three specific proposals announced by the Government for addressing the particular needs of the disadvantaged. First, the Government propose to modify the regulators' statutory duties as they affect the disadvantaged. The regulators' existing social duties vary somewhat between the utility sectors, but typically require the regulators to take into account the interests of the disabled, pensioners and rural consumers. These existing duties will be retained, but they will be extended to cover low-income consumers and, where this is not already the case, the chronically sick.
Secondly, we propose to introduce legislation to give Ministers powers, following full consultation, with Parliament and others, to issue statutory guidance to the regulators on social and indeed environmental objectives. I believe that that deals with the question raised by the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Newby. However, I should make it clear that this would require primary legislation and in that way would keep the distinction clear when a situation arises which changes the framework within which regulation takes place.
The proposal has been widely welcomed. It will ensure that the utilities, as sectors, will make an appropriate contribution to wider social goals. It will make clear that the responsibility for setting objectives in those areas rests with the Government, not the regulators. It will improve the transparency and the predictability of regulation because the guidance will be strict and for a set duration for a number of years—perhaps the duration of a parliament.
The plans for powers to issue guidance recognise that economic regulation does not take place in a vacuum. The powers will also provide a mechanism allowing Ministers to guide regulators on how to interpret their social and environmental duties. That also addresses a point which has been raised. If liberalisation leads to an unwinding of some of the cross-subsidies that can be seen to have a beneficial effect—and the noble Lord, Lord Currie, raised the point—it is something as regards which the Government could take action through the mechanism to correct the situation.
The powers to issue guidance and the extension of the regulators' duties towards the disadvantaged are longer-term propositions requiring legislation to give them effect. The needs of the disadvantaged require more immediate consideration. That is why, in publishing the Green Paper A Fair Deal for Consumers, the Government asked the regulators to draw up a social action plan to ensure that disadvantaged consumers benefit from improved efficiency, more choice and greater fairness. This is the third element in our strategy for ensuring that the needs of the disadvantaged are reflected in the system of regulation.
We are not complacent. The position of the disadvantaged in competitive energy markets, and the other utility sectors, is a key government concern, and one that the Government intend to keep closely under review.
I should like to deal with the question of standing charges and I hope that I can be more helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, on this occasion. Noble Lords
2002
will be interested to note that market forces are starting to deliver results in terms of a wider range of payment options and tariff structures for consumers. Some companies are now offering tariffs with no standing charge. In the gas sector, for example, both Norweb and British Fuels offer tariffs without a standing charge. Naturally, the unit charge is higher, but that may be an alternative which is attractive to consumers who have lower than average consumption. We hope that in these markets which are becoming competitive alternatives will be produced which deal with the question of standing charges.
In the water sector, which is not the responsibility of my department, the recent consultation document on water charging recognised that for some low users standing charges for those with water meters can represent a high proportion of water bills. The consultation invited views on whether we should move to a position where there are no standing charges. It is not, of course, a free option and any re-balancing of charges will produce winners and losers. My colleagues are currently considering responses to the water charging consultation.
There is, of course, a distinction between this situation which is a monopoly and those where competition is now beginning to take place. I mention it because it shows that we are very much alive to the issue and will take action if necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised the issue of pre-payment meters and direct debit tariffs. Again, it is an issue where much work has come through the social plan and I hope we will begin to see changes taking place on it. I very much take on board the point made by my noble friend Lord Haskel that in business customers who pay in advance usually pay the lowest price. I hope that the utilities will gradually begin to deal with the problem.
My noble friend Lord Borne raised the question of individual regulators versus boards. We wish to see a degree of depersonalisation of regulation and ensure that there are stronger checks and balances on individual regulators. That is why we have moved to a position of three people rather than one individual.
In closing, I wish to take this opportunity once again to thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I am afraid that I have not had time to deal with all the issues, in particular the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on the relationship between the Competition Bill and the role of the regulators. This is an issue where we feel that the concurrent powers are right and as the markets become more competitive, it is right that the individual regulators should have the powers contained in the Competition Bill. I take the point that the position needs to be clear. Co-ordination is already being developed so that the regulators and the Director of Fair Trading will act in concert.
Noble Lords have made a number of excellent contributions to the debate and I trust that they will understand if I cannot deal with all the other points which arise. I assure the House that the Government will continue to press forward with the important work that they have initiated in the area. It is an important

2003
programme of reform and the Government believe that the proposals set out in their response to consultation will modernise the system of utility regulation and at the same time provide a fair deal for consumers in general and vulnerable consumers in particular.

Scotland Bill
8.46 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 31.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 16, line 4, leave out ("Standing orders shall ensure that,") and insert ("The Presiding Officer shall not submit a Bill in its unamended form for Royal Assent").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 16, line 5, leave out ("a Bill or any provision of a Bill") and insert ("the Bill or any provision of it").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 16, line 6, leave out from ("Parliament,") to end of line 7 and insert ("or
(b) a reference made in relation to the Bill under section 32 has been withdrawn following a request for withdrawal of the reference under section (ECJ references)(2)(b)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, with the leave of the House I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 132 and 136.
The Government consider that these amendments are necessary to ensure that Bills of the Scottish parliament are not unduly delayed. There may be cases where a law officer has referred a question of whether a Bill is within the legislative competence of the parliament to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the Judicial Committee decide in turn that it wants to refer the issue to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on some question of Community law. If the Judicial Committee made such a reference, the Bill could not, of course, be submitted for Royal Assent until the reference had been disposed of by the ECJ and by the Judicial Committee. Indeed, it might face quite a considerable delay while the ECJ was considering the issue.
These amendments provide that, if such a reference had been made, the parliament would be able to resolve to reconsider the Bill. Amendment No. 132 provides that, if the parliament resolved to reconsider a Bill, the presiding officer would be required to notify the law officers and the law officer who made the reference to the Judicial Committee would be required to request the withdrawal of the reference. Amendment No. 136 adds to the limited circumstances in Clause 34 in which the parliament can reconsider a Bill.
However, the parliament would not simply be able to reconsider the Bill, pass it and have the presiding officer submit it for Royal Assent. Amendment No. 127
2004
introduces an appropriate safeguard to prevent this happening. The parliament would be required to amend the Bill before it could be submitted for Royal Assent. At that stage a law officer could again refer the matter to the Judicial Committee if he considered that there was still a question as to whether the Bill was within the legislative competence of the parliament. We consider this to be a common sense approach. It prevents Bills being held up for considerable periods of time if the Judicial Committee refers a question to the European Court of Justice by giving the parliament power to reconsider them and removing the objection which prevents them from being submitted for Royal Assent. I hope that noble Lords agree that this is a sensible provision. I ask them to support the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to make one small appeal. I dislike abbreviations such as ECJ. I believe that its full title should be spelt out. When I was at school or in my younger days rpm always meant revolutions per minute and then it became retail price maintenance. There are other examples of that kind. I dislike abbreviations, and that is my only appeal in this case.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am happy to take on board that point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Scrutiny of Bills by the Judicial Committee]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 16, line 12, at beginning insert ("The Presiding Officer,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this matter has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, when we discussed Amendment No. 121 I indicated that the Government had been persuaded by the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord at that stage. I also indicated that all good things had to come to an end. As to Amendment No. 129, we have not been persuaded by the arguments of the noble and learned Lord. Clause 32 currently provides that the law officers of the United Kingdom government and the Scottish executive can make reference to the Judicial Committee if they consider that a Bill, or any provision of it, is outwith the legislative competence of the parliament. It would not be appropriate for the presiding officer to be able to make such reference. Such references are to be made in a four-week period once a Bill has been passed by the parliament.
Clause 31 provides that the presiding officer is required to decide whether a Bill is outwith the competence of the parliament. In reaching that decision he will no doubt want to take appropriate legal advice. It would not be appropriate to give him a role at the end of the process. Quite properly this role is confined to the law officers of the two administrations. Therefore, he has a role to play at the beginning of the process and the law officers have a role to play at the end. I do not

2005
believe that we should confuse the two. I am afraid that the Government are not persuaded by the arguments of the noble and learned Lord and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, the noble Lord has persuaded me that I should have drafted an additional consequential amendment to take account of the point that he makes; but he has not persuaded me on the fundamental issue that as currently drafted the presiding officer has a very important role to play in assessing whether a Bill is within or without the legislative competence of the parliament. This is a matter of importance and I seek to test the opinion of the House.
8.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 129) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 86.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Lyell, L.

Balfour, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Middleton, L.

Byford, B.

Montrose, D.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northesk, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Chesham, L.

Rennell, L.

Courtown, E. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Crathorne, L.

Rowallan, L.

Cross, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Fookes, B.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kingsland, L.

Vivian, L.

Luke, L. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Addington, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ahmed, L.

Desai, L.

Alli, L.

Dixon, L.

Amos, B.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bach, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Borrie, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Burlison, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Carlisle, E.

Goudie, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Grantchester, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Grenfell, L.

Chandos, V.

Hardie, L.

Christopher, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Crawley, B.

Hoyle, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

2006

Islwyn, L.

Rea, L.

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

Redesdale, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jeger, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Judd, L.

Sawyer, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Sewel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Simon, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McNair, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Maddock, B.

Thurso, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tordoff, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Monkswell, L.

Uddin, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Varley, L.

Nicol, B.

Whitty, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Winston, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

[* see col. 2018]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.1 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 not moved.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 132:
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—
ECJ REFERENCES
(".—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a reference has been made in relation to a Bill under section 32,

(b) a reference for a preliminary ruling has been made by the Judicial Committee in connection with that reference, and

(c) neither of those references has been decided or otherwise disposed of.

(2) If the Parliament resolves that it wishes to reconsider the Bill—

(a) the Presiding Officer shall notify the Advocate General, the Lord Advocate and the Attorney General of that fact, and

(b) the person who made the reference in relation to the Bill under section 32 shall request the withdrawal of the reference.

(3) In this section "a reference for a preliminary ruling" means a reference of a question to the European Court under Article 177 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, Article 41 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community or Article 150 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Power to intervene in certain cases]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 132A:
Page 16, line 38, leave out ("during") and insert ("before the expiry of").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment deals with a small point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, at Committee stage when we discussed the provisions of Clause 33. As currently drafted the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make an order prohibiting the presiding officer from submitting a Bill for Royal Assent. The

2007
times within which that order can be made are set out in Clause 33(3)(a),(b) and (c). The noble and learned Lord had concern over Clause 33(3)(c).
He pointed out that if a reference had taken place to the Judicial Committee it would not be competent for the Secretary of State to make an order until that Judicial Committee reference had been determined in one way or another. His concern was that the Judicial Committee might well be required to take up time considering references in relation to Bills where the Secretary of State had in mind to make an order prohibiting the Bill's submission for Royal Assent. My small amendment enables the order to be made prior to the four week period referred to in Clause 33(3)(c) in addition to the four week period itself. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am afraid we cannot accept the amendment. It may well go beyond what the noble and learned Lord indicated. It would extend the Secretary of State's powers in Clause 33 to prohibit, by order, the submission by the presiding officer of a Bill for Royal Assent.
Those powers are of course essential for the protection of international obligations, the interests of defence and national security and the law as it applies to reserved matters, but they are there as longstops. Their use would require to be justified and would be liable to be scrutinised by judicial review.
The extension proposed by the amendment would be entirely inappropriate. One effect of the amendment would be to extend the Secretary of State's power so as to encompass the period before the passing of the Bill. It cannot be right for the Secretary of State to be able to stop a Scottish Bill in its tracks when it is still being considered by the Scottish parliament. Nor can I see how such a power to interfere with the parliament's proceedings could be thought necessary to protect the interests which I have described.
Clause 33 provides ample safeguards as it stands. I cannot accept the proposition that any extension is necessary. The Bill already provides sufficient time for the Secretary of State to consider the terms of a Bill and make an order if necessary.
The danger of the amendment is that the Secretary of State could intervene during consideration by the parliament of the Bill when its final form is not known. Like this Bill, a Bill is liable to significant amendment as it goes through the parliament and the Secretary of State's reservations may well be removed in the course of events. This power should be exercised only once a Bill is complete and has passed all its stages.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree with that. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I take the point that my amendment may be too widely drafted. However, with the greatest respect to the Minister, he has not faced up to the argument I have advanced which was touched upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. If one focuses on Clause 33(3)(c), there is a practical issue. If a reference is made to the
2008
Judicial Committee, the Judicial Committee is required to make a decision or otherwise dispose of the issue before the order can be made. As the noble and learned Lord argued, it is possible that the Judicial Committee could take time in deciding a reference which is utterly academic in view of the fact that an order is to be made and the Secretary of State knows that all along.
I shall withdraw the amendment because I readily concede that it is not happily framed. However, I hope that before Third Reading it will be possible, by letter or otherwise, for the Minister to consider another solution to the practical problem advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 132B:
Page 17, line 6, at end insert—
("() A document bearing a certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and setting out the existence, scope and terms of any international obligations or the nature and extent of any interests of defence or national security of the United Kingdom relied upon for the purpose of an order under this section shall, in any legal proceedings relating to such an order, be conclusive evidence of the matters detailed within the document.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 146D. The amendments arise from something said in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, with some support from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Orders under Clause 33 will be subject to judicial review. In any such judicial review it will be necessary for the court to be informed which international obligations or interests of defence or national security are said to be relevant to the issue of whether the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the provisions of a particular Bill are incompatible with international obligations or interests of defence or national security.
The reasoning behind Clause 33 is that it is not possible to define international obligations or interests of defence or national security in such a way as to make them parameters of legislative competence, as with convention rights of Community law. That is because the domestic courts are not normally seized of the issue of determining Britain's international obligations.
My amendments follow up a suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, that some procedure by way of certificate be evolved. This would allow the relevant Secretary of State issuing the certificate to set out, for the benefit of the other parties to any judicial review proceedings and for the benefit of the court, the particular international obligations and interests of defence or national security that he had in mind when he addressed the issue which the courts will have to review, of whether there were reasonable grounds for taking the view that a particular Bill would be incompatible with such obligations or interests of national security or defence.
My amendments are based on similar statutory provisions where, by means of certificate, the court is informed about a certain state of events or factual

2009
circumstances relating to an issue which must be before it. There are statutory precedents for such certificates being conclusive in the way I suggest is appropriate here. In so far as the amendments take forward the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, who was clearly looking ahead to the practicalities with which the courts will have to cope in dealing with cases arising out of the Scotland Bill, I hope that a favourable response will be received. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, these amendments would provide that the Secretary of State could produce in court a document bearing his certificate and describing the international obligation or the interest of defence or national security upon which he has based his decision to use one of his powers of intervention under Clauses 33 or 54. Furthermore, they would provide that the document would in any legal proceedings relating to such an order be conclusive evidence of the matters detailed within it.
I appreciate that the intention behind the amendments is to provide assistance to the courts in assessing what is an international obligation or the interests of defence or national security. As the noble and learned Lord indicated, the domestic courts do not generally take cognizance of international obligations. However, I do not believe that the amendments are appropriate.
First, I note that to use the powers in Clauses 33 or 54 the Secretary of State must have reasonable grounds to believe that a particular action or provision is incompatible with an international obligation or interests of defence or national security, or that an action is necessary by a member of the Scottish executive to ensure that an international obligation is fulfilled. The order itself must state the Secretary of State's reasons for making it.
In a judicial review of the use of the powers, the question would be whether those grounds are reasonable. The Secretary of State, in making such an order, will be aware that he must be able to demonstrate that it is being made on reasonable grounds. To my mind, it is inconceivable that he could do so without describing in some detail the matters that are the subject of that order. Obviously, the courts would place appropriate weight on all the material set out in the order in reaching a conclusion.
These amendments go further and would require the evidence in the document to be conclusive evidence of the matters detailed in it. That would simply go too far. It should be for the court to judge whether the Secretary of State's evidence is conclusive in that regard. That is an extremely important and fundamental issue. It is not sufficient just for the certificate to take with it the imprint of conclusiveness. It must be a matter for the courts to decide whether the Secretary of State has acted reasonably and reached an appropriate decision. Therefore, on that basis, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am disappointed and I suspect so also will be the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, although I have not discussed the matter with him since he raised the issue.
The Minister's answer means that in judicial review proceedings there will be scope for a dispute, first, as to what are the international obligations of the United Kingdom, or what are the interests of the defence of the United Kingdom, or what are the interests of national security, before one moves on to the much more crucial issue of whether the Secretary of State had reasonable grounds to believe that a particular Bill was incompatible with one or other of the matters mentioned in Clause 33(1)(a).
I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, made his suggestion in the hope that it may limit the scope and extent of judicial proceedings which may be raised to challenge any order made under Clause 33. That was certainly the purpose of bringing forward this amendment. However, the Government are quite clearly intent on resisting it, and tempted though I am, I do not seek the opinion of the House on this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Stages of Bills]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 17, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Each Bill shall be considered by the Parliament at the following stages—

(a) a general debate on the principles of the Bill;

(b) a stage during which a committee of the Parliament may hear evidence on and shall consider representations received from interested parties on the subject matter of the Bill, and at the conclusion of which the committee shall report to the Parliament on the evidence and representations it has received;

(c) a stage for a further general debate on the Bill, in the light of the report prepared in terms of paragraph (b) hereof, with an opportunity for members to vote on the general principles of the Bill;

(d) a committee stage for members of the Parliament to consider and vote on the detail of the Bill;

(e) a report stage to consider any amendments subsequent to the committee stage in paragraph (d); and

(f) a final debate and vote on the Bill, at which the Parliament can either pass or reject it.

(1A) A period of not less than three calendar months shall separate the stages of the Bill mentioned in subsections (1)(c) and (e) unless otherwise provided for by a resolution of the Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are returning here to the issue of how the Scottish parliament will deal with legislation. That issue overlaps the second debate we had at this Report stage relating to a second chamber of the Scottish parliament. As your Lordships know, the Government have set their minds against having any second chamber at all, despite the fact that in this Bill we have clear evidence of the importance of a second chamber, given the number of government amendments, let alone the amendments of anybody else, which have

2011
been brought forward. Without the Opposition doing anything, it will take the other place quite a large proportion of a day to get through the Government's own amendments.
I do not complain about that because it is an indication that the Government are listening to the arguments. This Bill is important. It is not like any other Bill which we have dealt with and it is doing something quite dramatic to the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. I make no complaint of the fact that the Government are bringing forward so many amendments. But my point is that that illustrates the importance of having a second chamber where those matters can be debated, dare I say it, rather less dramatically than affairs are usually debated in the other place where there is often a lot more heat than light, whereas in your Lordships' House there is always light and sometimes a little heat.
This clause sets out stages of a Bill in the Scottish parliament. The Government have a contradictory position in this regard. Clause 34(1) sets out three stages of a Bill which seem to me to be entirely a replication of the procedures in another place: there shall be a general debate on the Bill and members can vote on its general principles. That sounds like a Second Reading. There is then provision for consideration of the detail of a Bill. That sounds very much like our Committee stage. There is then a final stage at which the Bill can be passed or rejected. That is certainly the Third Reading in the other place which is fairly automatic compared with the procedures in your Lordships' House. But the Bill says that the standing orders "shall include". I accept that it says that but it is prescriptive. It does not allow the Scottish parliament to start off with a clean sheet on how it deals with legislation. The Bill provides that those procedures must be followed.
And yet ironically, on 28th July when we discussed this in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, said that:
"the Government believe that it is not for us to prescribe the working practices of the parliament".
Yet this clause prescribes the working practices of the parliament. The noble Baroness continues in col. 1404:
"The consultative steering group has already begun to consider how the legislative process might be handled by the Scottish parliament. It is very likely to recommend a vigorous pre-legislative process so that proposals for legislation which come before the parliament have been subject to rigorous scrutiny and participation and that the effects of the proposed legislation have been well considered".—[Official Report, 28/7/98; cols. 1403–1404.]
When we discussed on the first day of Report last week the question of a second chamber, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said, with reference to how the new parliament will approach the business of legislation,
"That is why we have set up the consultative steering group established by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The steering group has already recognised the importance of putting in place procedures to facilitate and encourage prior consultation on legislative proposals. It has endorsed the concept of ensuring that there are strong committees in the parliament able to scrutinise effectively any legislation that is brought before it".—[Official Report, 22/10/98; col. 1587.]
2012
One of my questions in the course of this debate is whether we can have some indication of the conclusions to which the consultative committee came so that we know, when we look at Clause 34, how the parliament is to approach legislation.
My amendment, which is simply a replica of the amendment I proposed in Committee—I said I thought I would return to it and indeed I am now doing so—proposes a situation not unlike that in Clause 34; not unlike our procedure here. But before it starts what I would call the parliamentary procedure we are used to here at Westminster, we should have a Bill presented with a general debate on the principles and then another stage during which the committee of the parliament can hear evidence, consider representations from interested parties on the subject matter of the Bill and report then to the parliament on the evidence and representations it received. We then move into what I might call a more conventional Westminster system.
No doubt there will be a lot of lip service paid to draft Bills and so forth. If it is not just lip service, I cannot see any reason why the kind of format suggested in this amendment should not be taken on board. If we are going to be prescriptive—I believe the Government are being prescriptive—we should certainly add in the prospect of draft Bills and the representation and evidence-taking that go with them. In many ways that would get round the lack of a second chamber. I have noticed that outside organisations often use this Chamber more than the other House in order to advance their case because they know that they have a better chance of winning an argument in your Lordships' House than in the House of Commons. Governments of both parties have occasionally found that to their cost.
I am suggesting in this amendment that, as we cannot have a second chamber in the Scottish parliament, those outside bodies ought to have a place in the legislative scheme of things where they can present their case and make their arguments.
The Minister will speak to Amendment No. 134. I have no objection to it. It deals with the fact that not all Bills are new legislation; some are consolidations as we call them here—I presume that is (a),
"Bills which restate the law".
Others are Bills which "repeal spent enactments" and "private Bills". I have no problem with that.
Amendment No. 134A seeks to make provision for the parliament to be able to introduce emergency legislation. That is sensible. The Minister perhaps includes that in the first subsection of his Amendment No. 134. It is perhaps not so obvious, but we dealt with it in our subsection though I notice that we are dealing with the three stages as set down by the Government. Clearly, if the Government accepted my amendment we would suggest that the five stages could be truncated.
We appreciate that the Scottish parliament may want to enact emergency legislation, though I have to say to your Lordships—your Lordships will not be surprised—that the history of emergency legislation is not one which leads me to believe that the Scottish parliament would be wise to use the procedures for it very often. Your Lordships were dragged back from the Recess in

2013
September to pass emergency legislation and at considerable cost. I doubt whether that emergency legislation has yet been used. It could easily have waited until we come back in the normal course of events, but that is another argument. I believe that sometimes emergency legislation is flawed. It is government showing a knee-jerk reaction. Dare I say that governments of all parties, when they take such action and bring forward legislation on that basis, very often do not get it entirely right. I would not go as far as to say that they get it wrong, but often they do not get it entirely right. Nonetheless, I believe the provision should be there because the Scottish parliament has such important powers that it may well need to use emergency legislation.
But my main point is that as regards the bulk of the legislation we should go further than just prescribe a system that looks like the House of Commons. We should prescribe, if I may so call it, a pre-legislative stage. That is what my amendment does. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, after dinner. He is more amiable and we are better placed to receive him. In Clause 34 the Government have been a little nannyish in that they are setting out the general debate and so forth. I should have liked them to say that each Bill shall be considered in the parliament using the best evidence available from the Parliament of Great Britain and from Scandinavia and that a system shall be produced which examines the whole of legislation properly. However, I suppose that the best we can expect is that room is left for the Scottish parliament to make up its mind on a great number of new measures.
I also believe that both the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, have done rather well. It is a very good suggestion. The proposal would be a great improvement on the kind of procedure that we have in this House. It would remove the need for the second chamber which the noble Lord considers to be so essential.
The fact is that we are useful in this Chamber because of the imperfections of the other Chamber. That is why we are so essential here and why we and the Scottish parliament should see to it that the first chamber has a system for examining Bills which produces legislation that does not need an enormous number of corrections by the second chamber due to the imperfections of the first.
That is why we believe the amendment is unnecessary. It is a good suggestion for noble Lords to look at, but we cannot support putting such detail into the Bill. It is nannying the Scottish parliament to a quite unnecessary degree. The Government themselves have gone too far, but we shall put up with it if they show some regret.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, in that case I immediately show regret. It is a matter of balance as to how far one goes in indicating a general framework which is required and necessary and how far one leaves a degree of flexibility to the parliament itself. We cannot support Amendment No. 133. I appreciate that the noble Lord wants to ensure that the parliament has sufficient opportunities to consider and vote on the Bills before it and I agree with that. I also agree that it is important that the parliament should hear and consider the views of the bodies interested in a Bill. However, it is not for us to prescribe the details of the working practices of the parliament. The Government cannot accept these amendments which intrude too far. It must be for the parliament to decide on its own procedures, including arrangements for the scrutiny of legislation, and to put in place appropriate standing orders. That is why I have no difficulty in saying that there is no incompatibility between what I am saying now and what my noble friend Lady Ramsay said at an earlier stage. It is clearly for the parliament to put in place its own working arrangements. However, we think it necessary to provide a rudimentary, basic framework that the standing orders should address as a minimum.
We have put in three minimum stages of parliamentary scrutiny. They will apply to the vast majority of Bills of the Scottish parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, indicated, they include a general debate on the Bill with an opportunity for members to vote on its general principles; consideration of, and an opportunity to vote on, the details of the Bill; and a final stage at which the Bill may be passed or rejected. The whole point is that that is not the be all and end all of it. That is the minimum requirement. Further details should be left for the Scottish parliament to decide.
Reference has been made to the consultative steering group which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has set up. It is, indeed, considering the details of the processes of legislation and of scrutiny which will build around the basic framework that this Bill requires. Previously, we said that the report would be ready by the end of the year. Things are moving considerably faster and we can now be more optimistic. We think that the report will be ready by Christmas! The parliament will have the recommendations of that consultative steering group to help it in framing its standing orders, but it is very much a matter for the parliament to decide on its own procedures and working practices as long as the minimum provision is satisfied in terms of the three stages that we have identified in this Bill. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment No. 134 replaces the current provision in Clause 34(2) which allows standing orders to modify the provisions about stages of Bills which are set out in Clause 34(1). The second part of the new provision clarifies the types of Bill for which different provision may be made. Essentially, the Bills to which the provision applies are those for which the procedure needs to be simplified—the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, identified most of them—such as consolidation Bills,

2015
statute law repeal Bills and private Bills. At Westminster, special procedures exist for similar classes of Bill either in statute or in standing orders. The first part of the new provision enables standing orders to make provision to enable the parliament to expedite proceedings in relation to a particular Bill. That will be appropriate where a Bill is needed in an emergency. I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made on that by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.
I note that the noble Lord has tabled an amendment to the Government's Amendment No. 134. However, the Government are unable to support that amendment. As I have explained, the government amendment would ensure that for certain classes of Bill the parliament can provide for different procedures. The Opposition's Amendment No. 134A would mean that even the special categories of Bill for which special provision is made in the Government's Amendment No. 134 would have to go through the three stages provided by Clause 34(1), although I appreciate that the amendment attempts to provide that there need not be any delay between the stages. That does not in our view provide sufficient flexibility for those categories of Bill.
I turn now to the Government's Amendment No. 137. This is a technical amendment. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 requires standing orders to provide, in effect, that a Bill which affects Crown interests shall not be passed unless the appropriate consent has been signified. The amendment ensures that the reference to the passing of the Bill in that provision includes the approval of a Bill once it has been reconsidered by the parliament under Clause 34(3). Such reconsideration would occur where the Judicial Committee has found a provision of the Bill to be ultra vires or the Secretary of State has made an order in relation to the Bill under Clause 33. We have reached the position where I have to indicate that we cannot accept Amendment No. 133.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he clarify one point for me? What is the position of Her Majesty if the Bill is passed by the parliament, receives Royal Assent and then, some considerable time afterwards, is found to be ultra vires? What is the position of the Queen if she has given the Bill Royal Assent and it is found not to be valid?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, a timetable is set down for a challenge to the vires of a Scottish Bill. I do not think there is any way in which Her Majesty would be involved.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask him if that is correct? Surely a Bill is open to challenge indefinitely. Once a Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, an individual member of the public, who claims to be adversely affected by it, could raise proceedings and seek to have the Act reduced. That is one of the possibilities that lies ahead, once a Bill becomes an Act, after Royal Assent, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said. She has raised a
2016
very interesting issue. I do not suggest that I know the answer to it, but if Her Majesty has given Royal Assent to a Bill that is ultra vires, quid juris?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I have not quite got the drift of the point of the noble Baroness. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, is quite right, it is open to challenge. But I do not see how that affects the position of Her Majesty at all.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am not a lawyer and I do not know all that much about the constitution, but it seems to me that in our system the ultimate accolade of a Bill is Royal Assent and it becomes law. Never before have I heard of anybody having to go and say to Her Majesty, "I am sorry, I have got this wrong. Will you please pull this back and do it again?"
Lord Sewel: My Lords, yes, the Queen grants Royal Assent—that is absolutely true—but the Queen is not involved if a Bill is challenged. Her role in approving a Bill passed by the Parliament is formal. She is not in anyway dragged into the argument about the vires or any matter like that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Carnegy has raised an interesting point to which we may return. Possibly the Queen would be all right because the Government would make provisions and exercise some discretion in these matters—or the Home Secretary might exercise some discretion.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for saying that my amendment was a good suggestion at which he hoped members of the Scottish parliament would look. But he thought that not only was I nannying too much, but that the Government were nannying too much. He has a point. The Government cannot complain about my amendment when they have such a detailed clause in the Bill. It is almost a case of how far does nanny go.
The Minister seemed to agree that it would be sensible if the parliament heard from outside bodies during the legislative procedure which would improve the legislation, but that was for the parliament to provide these arrangements. He told me that the consultative steering committee would report by Christmas and give its suggestions. But they are only suggestions. With apologies to Alice, my question is: when is prescribing not being prescriptive? It would appear to be, "When I say so", according to Ministers. They cannot complain about me being prescriptive when they have Clause 34 here.
I am not convinced about this. If we have Clause 34(1) in the Bill, it is not a good argument to say, "Yes, we agree with what you are saying in your clause and that would be a good way for the Scottish parliament to proceed, but it is far too prescriptive". If Clause 34(1) was not in the Bill, I would understand that and I would settle back in my seat. But I am not sure that I do settle back comfortably in my seat. Before I make a decision, perhaps I should say that I fully accept Amendment No. 134 and the consequential amendments and I am content with the Government's

2017
arguments against my Amendment No. 134A. But I still feel that the points I make in my amendments are valid ones. If we are going to lay down processes in a Bill, I think we should lay down pre-legislative processes as well for a single chamber parliament. I am therefore going to seek the opinion of the House.
9.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 133) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 85.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Attlee, E. [Teller.]

Kingsland, L.

Balfour, E.

Kintore, E.

Byford, B.

Luke, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Middleton, L.

Chesham, L.

Montrose, D.

Courtown, E. [Teller.]

Northesk, E.

Craigavon, V.

Norton of Louth, L.

Crathorne, L.

Renton, L.

Cross, V.

Rowallan, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Strange, B.

Fookes, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grantchester, L.

Ahmed, L.

Grenfell, L.

Alli, L.

Hardie, L.

Amos, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bach, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hoyle, L.

Borrie, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Burlison, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Carlisle, E.

Islwyn, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

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

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Jeger, B.

Chandos, V.

Judd, L.

Christopher, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Crawley, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Maddock, B.

Desai, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dixon, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Donoughue, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Nicol, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Goudie, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

2018

Rea, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Thurso, V.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Tomlinson, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Tordoff, L.

Sawyer, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sewel, L.

Uddin, B.

Simon, V.

Varley, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Whitty, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Winston, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

[* see col. 2053]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.49 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, before I call the next amendment I must inform the House that in a Division earlier this evening on Amendment No. 129, the numbers of those voting were Content, 40, Not Content, 85, rather than the numbers that were announced.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 17, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("() Subsection (1) does not prevent standing orders making provision to enable the Parliament to expedite proceedings in relation to a particular Bill.
() Standing orders may make provision different from that required by subsection (1) for the procedure applicable to Bills of any of the following kinds—

(a) Bills which restate the law,

(b) Bills which repeal spent enactments,

(c) private Bills.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 134A and 135 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 17, line 18, at end insert—
("() a reference made in relation to the Bill under section 32 is withdrawn following a request for withdrawal of the reference under section (ECJ references)(2)(b),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 17, line 24, after ("36(1)(a)") insert ("and paragraph 5 of Schedule 3").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 138:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—
PROCEEDINGS BY OR AGAINST THE PARLIAMENT ETC
(".—(1) Proceedings by or against the Parliament shall be instituted by or (as the case may be) against the corporation on behalf of the Parliament.
(2) Proceedings by or against—

(a) the Presiding Officer or a deputy, or

(b) any member of the staff of the Parliament,

shall be instituted by or (as the case may be) against the corporation on his behalf.
(3) In any proceedings against the Parliament, the court shall not make an order for suspension, interdict, reduction or specific performance (or other like order) but may instead make a declarator.
(4) In any proceedings against—

(a) any member of the Parliament,

(b) the Presiding Officer or a deputy,

(c) any member of the staff of the Parliament, or

(d) the Parliamentary corporation,

the court shall not make an order for suspension, interdict, reduction or specific performance (or other like order) if the effect of doing so would be to give any relief against the Parliament which could not have been given in proceedings against the Parliament.
(5) References in this section to an order include an interim order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I mentioned on the first day of Report in the debate on an earlier group of amendments about the validity of acts of various office holders, these amendments together with Amendment No. 138 are part of the results of our consideration of your Lordships' concerns that the parliament should be able to go about its business without undue interruption from the courts. Noble Lords made it clear that the Bill should say more about this than was contained in the Bill at an earlier stage. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is what this new clause achieves.
I hope it is reasonably self-explanatory. The new clause will restrict the remedies which may be granted against the parliament. We judge that it would be wise to ensure that no court may make an order for suspension, interdict, reduction or specific performance, or another like order, nor should it be able to make any interim order. We think this provides a broad protection against attempts to manipulate the business of the parliament via the courts. We hope that this will go a considerable way to assuaging the concerns expressed by noble Lords at earlier stages.
We do not think that we can put the parliament completely above the courts. For that reason we have left open to the courts the option of making a declarator. It will, of course, be for the parliament itself to decide how it should react to any such declarator. The parliament would not be liable for contempt of court if it merely decided to take no action to give an effect to a declarator. Rather, it will essentially be a political decision for the parliament to decide how to react in such cases. We believe the parliament will wish to be seen to be upholding the law and in most cases would expect it to comply with any court judgment, in particular any which directly affects the civil rights of individuals, for example, concerning the legitimacy of the withdrawal of rights and privileges of an MSP.
However, there may be circumstances in which it would be reasonable for the parliament to decide to take no action, notwithstanding the declarator to the effect that the parliament had acted unlawfully. For example, where a Bill which is nearing the end of its legislative passage is held not to have complied with some
2020
technical provision of standing orders about the procedures for introducing a Bill, it might be perfectly reasonable in those circumstances for the parliament to press on with that Bill, secure in the knowledge that the resultant Act could not be challenged because of the defect in procedure.
We think that this strikes the right balance for a body which has to be both free to go about the business of law making while not actually being above the law. We have also taken the opportunity in the new clause to prevent actions being pursued by the back door, against individuals associated with the parliament.
Finally, it may be helpful if I make it clear that under the Bill as presently drafted, and as we propose that it should be further amended, the parliament would have considerable competence to legislate about its protections from judicial proceedings. We intend to bring forward amendments to Schedule 4 which will make it clear that those parts of the Bill which deal with protection from judicial proceedings—namely, Clause 37 dealing with contempt of court, Clause 38, which provides some protection in the context of defamation, and the new clause in this amendment—may be modified by the parliament. I will explain the effect of those amendments in more detail when we come to debate them. However, the intention is that they would ensure that the parliament would have considerable scope to develop its own protections in the light of experience.
The parliament would, for example, be able to provide that certain types of proceedings could not be brought against it at all. However, it could do that only within the competence provided by the Bill. It could not, for example, make such provision as would infringe rights conferred by the proposed human rights Act, since it is prevented from doing so by Clause 28(2)(d). Noble Lords will appreciate that that is a significant point in its own right.
I am conscious that this is a potentially large and complex subject. I hope noble Lords will agree that we have the balance about right. We have concluded that we cannot justify attempting to mirror Westminster privileges. Those privileges are wide-ranging and in certain respects apply for largely historical reasons. We recognise, however, that the parliament needs protection. We believe that the collection of privileges that we now propose to provide, taken together with the proposed amendments to clarify the scope of the parliament's power to legislate on this matter, is the appropriate way to proceed. I hope that noble Lords will agree. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, this is an interesting matter. The noble Lord said that future amendments will allow the parliament to increase its own protection. He also said that he did not think it right that the parliament should have privilege in the way that this Parliament does. Does that mean that the amendments that he will bring forward will prevent the parliament having the kind of privilege that this

2021
Parliament has? Will there be boundaries as regards the scope that the parliament has for further legislating for its own protection?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I wish to ask a question about the office holders mentioned in subsections (2) and (4). I wonder whether the words, "acting in their capacity as such", have been accidentally omitted. Without those words, I suspect that the individuals may end up being somewhat over-privileged.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I welcome this amendment. It undoubtedly meets one of the major concerns that I have expressed on more than one occasion in relation to the Bill as presently drafted. I have referred to the fact that in local authority affairs it is not uncommon for interdict proceedings to be raised for the purposes of trying to prevent a meeting taking place or an item of business being considered. I sought to persuade your Lordships and the Government that that would be highly undesirable in the affairs of the new parliament. I very much welcome the fact that that point is recognised in this amendment. It also covers other issues such as suspension, reduction or orders for specific performance.
I am grateful for the very detailed explanation of the Government's position lying behind this amendment, touching as it does on the attitude to the extension to the Scottish parliament of the concept of parliamentary privilege as enjoyed by this Parliament. That statement and the statement made earlier in relation to Amendment No. 112 will be of great assistance to me and, I suspect, other Members of this House when we consider Amendment No. 192B next week.
I hope it does not sound churlish if I say that I do not believe that the amendment goes far enough, but I welcome the stage that it has reached. I am sure it will be of great benefit not only to parliamentarians but to the courts in the years ahead.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, for what he said. I hope that we have got the balance about right. There may be nuances either side of the line, but broadly we have it right. In relation to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I do not believe it is necessary to put in wording such as "in their capacity as presiding officer". The protection afforded to them would not protect them in relation to a private matter. The whole context of the clause makes it clear that it is in relation to the parliament. I believe that it is all right.
As for the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, we are not creating a situation where the parliament would have identical privileges to those enjoyed by this Parliament. The privileges enjoyed by this Parliament to an extent flow from history and the fact that the Parliament starts as a court. The limitations are those to which I referred in terms of Clauses 37, 38 and the new clause, so there is a limitation on the extent
2022
to which the parliament could accrete to itself new privileges. It is likely to be more helpful if we delay the provision until Schedule 4. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.p.m.
Clause 40 [Calculating time for meeting of the Parliament]:
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 139:
Transpose Clause 40 to after Clause 3.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. It simply relocates Clause 40 to be alongside Clauses 2 and 3 because those are the only two clauses to which it relates. Clauses 2 and 3 require the parliament to meet within seven days, beginning immediately after the day of the poll at the general election. Clause 40 excludes Saturdays, Sundays and various holidays from the calculation. Given their close relationship, it seems to us only sensible to locate the provisions together. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 139A:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
POWER OF THE PARLIAMENT TO CHANGE TITLES
(" . The Parliament may change the titles "Scottish Executive" and "First Minister" to such other titles as it considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 139A and with it speak to Amendments Nos. 139B and 139C. We have been over this ground a number of times. The first amendment simply empowers the parliament to decide on the titles of the Scottish executive (that is, the government of Scotland) and the First Minister (that is the Prime Minister).
The Government are being entirely, utterly and completely prescriptive in their approach to the titles, in contrast to the previous debating points they brought forward to your Lordships. Not only are they prescribing the titles but they seem determined that the parliament should not be able to change them. My view, which I have expressed to your Lordships before, is that despite the case the Government argue about Northern Ireland, "First Minister" will not last as a title. I suspect it will become "Prime Minister". To an extent, that would be a pity, not because I worry about a rival Prime Minister to the current incumbent in Downing Street north of the Border, but because it would be better if we used—as they do in some Commonwealth countries—the word "Premier" to describe the chief Minister of a devolved or state parliament.
We have been over this before. I wonder whether the Government have even reflected on changing their minds in so far as they might allow the Scottish parliament to decide. This is an issue which normally brings together the Liberal and Conservative Oppositions and the Government should take account of that and take on board the fact that we are not doing this in a negative way but because we think it would be a

2023
sensible way forward. It would give those gentlemen and ladies and that body the kind of titles that befit the kind of parliament the Government continue to tell me they wish to set up in Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. In particular I support Amendments Nos. 139B and 139C. There are two reasons for supporting that change. First, the title "premier" has a good precedent. In the past the head of the Stormont Government in Northern Ireland was known as the Premier. Secondly, "Premier" is shorter than "First Minister" and we should aim for brevity whenever we can.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, of all the debates that we have had on this Bill I believe this to be the most fatuous. It is quite absurd that we continue to require of the Government a change when we all hope the Scottish parliament will have the guts and verve to say that it will give its leader whatever name it chooses. I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. If the parliament decides to describe that individual as the premier or prime minister factually that will be the way that the matter will evolve. It is quite clear to me that the Government are not prepared to accept this. It is dumb and insensitive and will not do them any good. The simple question I put to the Government is the following: if those who head up the Scottish executive determine that their first minister is to be described as the prime minister or premier is that in any sense justiciable? If that change is adopted by the parliament is there anything that this Parliament or the Scottish courts can do about it?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, with Amendments Nos. 139A, 139B and 139C the Opposition return us again to the question of whether it is appropriate for the Scotland Bill to prescribe by what names certain office holders created by the Bill should be known. These amendments in particular address the titles of the first minister and the Scottish executive. Previous amendments, with which we have all become very familiar, have addressed the title of presiding officer.
By now noble Lords know only too well, since I explained it at some length—at too great a length, according to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—only last Thursday on the first day of Report stage, that the Government believe that in the interest of legal certainty certain titles should be prescribed in the Bill. By prescribing the legal title of these important offices we ensure that references in this legislation and all future legislation is consistent and there is no confusion about the roles and responsibilities.
The Government consider that it is particularly important to ensure that the names First Minister and the Scottish executive are clearly established from the outset. As noble Lords will appreciate, the Bill places very important responsibilities on the members of the Scottish executive and the First Minister. It is important that everyone is clear about who is to exercise those
2024
responsibilities. I believe that people will find it more helpful in that regard to have distinct titles on the face of the Bill. The titles in the Bill serve the purpose and we believe that the amendments are unnecessary. The terms "First Minister" and "Scottish executive" are already in general use in the press.
As to the term "Premier" as an alternative to "First Minister", I see no advantage, with respect to the noble Lord who has moved the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I appreciate that there is a history of the use of that title in other administrations, such as in the provincial and territorial parliaments of Canada. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, explained, in the past it has been used in Northern Ireland. However, I remind the noble Lord that today the title is First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly, not "Premier". The title "First Minister" is in constant use in the press. Every time Mr. Trimble is mentioned the title "First Minister" comes automatically to most people's lips. In that context, the title "Premier" has a long and distinguished history.
But we are looking at a different situation and we must have regard to how the title would be received in Scotland today. When a similar amendment was debated in the other place the point was made that there was a risk of confusion with the Premier League, and there were other football references. I have no opinion on that matter. However, I believe that to introduce the term "Premier" now would create more confusion than enlightenment. As I have already said, the title "First Minister" is being increasingly used by the press and public. It is clear, unambiguous and descriptive of the office. The Government therefore believe that this is the right title and are not willing to accept the amendment.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, asked about the power of the parliament to change the titles. The Bill prescribes the legal titles for various offices. The provisions of the Bill which provide those titles cannot be altered by the parliament as they are not included in the list of provisions in Schedule 4 which the parliament will be able to modify. A partial direct answer is that the parliament would not be able to change those titles by standing orders. However—this answers the other part of the noble and learned Lord's question—it would be possible for the parliament in its standing orders to make provisions about the forms of address to be used in the proceedings of parliament if it so wished. It may choose to use terms other than those prescribed in the Bill within its own proceedings. But I am also sure that the parliament would wish to consider carefully whether it was appropriate for someone to be addressed other than by his legal title, bearing in mind the potential risk of public confusion. No doubt the parliament will wish to have regard to what terms become common usage among the public at large. Ultimately that usage would be a matter for the parliament to decide. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, the Government are being ridiculous on this question. I think that the word "fatuous" has been used. We could go through Roget's Thesaurus and produce a list of adjectives. It is

2025
a nonsensical argument which we have had over and again. The fact is that the parliament in Scotland will decide what to call its officials, as the Assembly in Northern Ireland has already done, and as is allowed for in the Government of Wales Bill. Why the Scotland Bill should be different from those two I do not understand.
I have a constructive suggestion to make to the Government. Why do they not convene a focus group and put all the titles to that group? I understand that that is the convention of the Labour Party. It would find that none of the titles had any resonance and common sense might be introduced before we reach Third Reading.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the reason that we return to the matter again and again is that we are overcome with amusement at the Government's arguments. They have gone a little further tonight. They have tried some new arguments: that there might be confusion with the Premier Division. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon who knows about these matters points out that in the higher courts of Scotland there is a First Division and a Second Division. Does the noble Baroness think that plaintiffs arraigned before either of those courts believe that they are going to a football match? Of course not. I think that that perhaps takes the prize.
My noble and learned friend also points out that in a court case reported recently the Lord Advocate had to oppose "Robbie the Pict". If someone can be called "Robbie the Pict" in legal journals, it seems to me that someone can be called Premier or First Minister.
The argument is definitely Alice in Wonderland. The noble Baroness's position is, "Words mean what I say they mean, and that is it". She answered my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie with a "partial" direct answer. It is either a direct answer or it is not a direct answer. One cannot have a partial direct answer.
Like the other two noble Lords who have spoken, I cannot understand why the Government do not see how ridiculous their position is. The simple fact of the matter is that these people will be called what I think common parlance demands that they be called: that is, Prime Minister or Premier. I prefer the government to start with Premier; they might get that to hold. If they do not do so, the title will be Prime Minister. There is the Speaker. There is the First Minister; we have dealt with him. The other chaps and "chapesses" will be called Ministers. That is the simple fact of the matter. I believe that the Government are behaving most amazingly.
I should like to put in the Bill proper names for those people—names which are understood around the English speaking world, as my noble friend Lord Renton said. At the very least we should make it clear on the face of the Bill that the parliament can make its own decisions. We shall probably return to the matter at Third Reading to see whether the Government can come forward with any better arguments. I am almost tempted to say that we may give them a prize for the best argument they come up with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 41 [The Scottish Executive]:
[Amendments Nos. 139B and 139C not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 19, line 2, at end insert—
("() No Minister of the Crown may be appointed as a Scottish Minister (including as a Scottish Law Officer).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the related amendment deal with overlapping memberships. Until yesterday morning, the amendment was described in both the Welsh and Scottish Bills as "the Ron Davies amendment". Unfortunately, we have to change that. The problem is that as this and the Welsh Bill are constructed, it is possible for one and the same person to be a Minister of the Crown and a First Secretary or junior Minister in the Scottish government.
Earlier in our proceedings during discussions on agriculture and fisheries, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, made it clear that:
"UK Ministers are accountable to a UK Parliament and Scottish Ministers are accountable to the Scottish parliament".—[Official Report, 28/7/98; col. 1434.]
The Minister was absolutely right. That is how it will be and that is how it should be. How is it possible for someone to be answerable to the Scottish parliament and to the UK parliament, which are different governments with different responsibilities, different collective Cabinet responsibility and different accountability? It is just not possible.
Earlier in the year Mr. Donald Dewar thought for a moment or two that he might at the same time be Secretary of State for Scotland and First Minister. I suppose that I had better use the term "First Minister" or I shall be sent to the tower for such an infringement of the Government's legalistic view. Mr. Donald Dewar, being an intelligent and honourable man, quickly realised that that was a ridiculous position and indicated that it would not be carried forward. It is a ridiculous position. No one should be allowed to contemplate it. That is true also for the other Ministers. My amendments simply put on the face of the Bill what I believe should be the position. It is that no Minister of the Crown in the United Kingdom Government can at the same time be a Minister in the Scottish parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in his defence, tried to flatter me by saying that my services might be needed by both governments looking after the same portfolio. Even that amount of flattery did not persuade me of the argument. I am not persuaded at all. I believe that we should make it clear that no one should be allowed to do both jobs. It is incompatible with the way we look at government and ministerial accountability. How can the same person be accountable to two different parliaments perhaps for two different policies? It is just not possible.
Therefore, I believe that we should put the words in my amendment on the face of the Bill so that it is clear for all time that no Minister of the Crown may be appointed a Scottish Minister, including a Scottish Law Officer, and no Minister of the Crown may be appointed

2027
as a junior Scottish Minister. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will say that he can conceive of a circumstance—I hope that he does not give the same one that he tried last time—in which it might be otherwise. I beg to move, in the hope that the Government will either take the amendments on board or promise to return at Third Reading with their own amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether he will enlighten your Lordships as to whether, if somebody is both a Minister of the Crown and a Scottish Minister, he will be able to draw the salaries of both appointments.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I take the greatest risk in intervening, first, as a simple farmer talking about the professions, and, secondly, because of my fairly recent deficiency.
In the vintage days of Ross there were times in the Scottish Standing Committee in another place when there was kudos in taking 40 minutes to make a speech. I achieved that in a debate on the laws of land and tenancy in the Shetlands. I cannot remember the exact title of the debate.
Just today I remembered some advice I had before I got into another place in 1959. I would repeat it to the Opposition then. It was not totally unfounded. It concerned the use of chattels or small items involved in a will. I have only heard today that great expression called praepositus. None of the Opposition knew what I was talking about then.
I have had these glimmers of interest in and professional advice about the law, and I admire the profession. But I would not dream of doing anything other than supporting the argument.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, when we discussed this issue earlier, I offered an argument in defence of the position which was crafted carefully and deliberately to attempt to protect the future employment prospects of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. On that occasion, he spurned my offer so I took back that argument.
Seriously, we have looked at this matter and I recognise that there is a significant tension between the concepts of both ministerial accountability and collective responsibility and membership by the same person of two different executives. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that we have every intention of coming forward on Third Reading with amendments which will deal with this point, both for members of the Scottish executive and junior members, ensuring that they cannot hold office in the two executives concurrently.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, bang goes one good set of amendments that could have given us a lot of sport! Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister. It is common sense and I am pleased that he has seen it. He obviously reflected on his argument on the last occasion and thought that it was not well founded. It seemed to be founded entirely on my
2028
position 20 years in the future. He probably realised that the Scottish parliament would be in a perilous state if, in 20 years time, it had to rely on my efforts. However, my noble friend Lord Renton is living proof that, if I were as fit as he, 20 years would not make much difference and I would be able to come to Scotland's aid in those circumstances.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I might take back the offer if the noble Lord continues.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. This is sensible. It makes the position clear for the future. I am grateful for his comments and for accepting the principle behind the proposal. I look forward to his amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [The Scottish Law Officers]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 140A:
Page 20, line 16, at end insert—
("(1A) The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland may at any time resign and shall do so if the Parliament resolves that the Scottish Executive no longer enjoys the confidence of the Parliament.
(1B) Where the Lord Advocate resigns in consequence of such a resolution, he shall be deemed to continue in office until the warrant of appointment of the person succeeding to the office of Lord Advocate is granted, but only for the purpose of exercising his retained functions.
(1C) Subsection (1B) is without prejudice to section 287 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (demission of office by Lord Advocate).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during consideration of the Bill in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, raised some points upon whether the Lord Advocate could resign and whether he would be required to do so in the event of the parliament resolving that the Scottish executive no longer enjoyed the confidence of the parliament. That led us to consider further whether the Bill deals adequately with the Scottish Law Officers' right to resign and the circumstances in which they should be required to resign. Although there is nothing in the Bill which prevents the Scottish Law Officers from being able to resign, further reflection has led the Government to conclude that the Bill should make it clear that they are able to do so.
Clause 42(2) requires the First Minister to tender his resignation to Her Majesty if the parliament resolves that the Scottish executive no longer enjoys the confidence of the parliament. Clause 44(3)(c) requires a Minister appointed by the First Minister under Clause 44 to resign in the same circumstances and Clause 46(4)(c) also requires a Junior Scottish Minister to resign in those circumstances. As presently drafted, the Bill does not impose the same requirement on the Scottish Law Officers, although there is nothing to prevent them from doing so voluntarily. We reflected on that point also and concluded that the Bill should provide that the Scottish Law Officers should also be required to tender their resignations if the parliament resolves that the Scottish executive no longer enjoys the confidence of the parliament.
Amendment 140A contains savings provisions to provide that where the Lord Advocate is required to resign, he shall be deemed to continue in office until his successor is appointed for the purposes of the retained functions. It is important that there should always be a Lord Advocate for the purposes of the conduct of solemn criminal proceedings because all indictments run in the name of the Lord Advocate of the day and would fall if he demits office. I say that, though noble Lords may be aware from newspapers that there is a recent exception in Dumbarton. There is already an express provision in Section 287 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 for indictments to remain effective even although the Lord Advocate has demitted office and, where the office of Lord Advocate is vacant, for indictments to be brought in the name of the Solicitor-General. Amendment 140A provides for that provision to continue to have effect. However, as this existing savings provision is only for criminal proceedings, a general saving provision is also required for the purposes of the other retained functions of the Lord Advocate—in particular, his functions in relation to civil proceedings or his other Law Officer functions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 20, line 16, at end insert—
("() The Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland shall each be qualified as either—

(a) an advocate, or

(b) a solicitor under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this issue was ventilated in earlier debates on the Bill. As the House well knows, in the 1920s the issue was raised as to whether the Lord Advocate can be either an advocate or a solicitor. At that time there was a proposal that a Glasgow solicitor should be appointed Lord Advocate. That proposal was rejected. Since then thinking has advanced considerably. Indeed, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, which I took through the House of Commons, gave to solicitors the right to apply for rights of audience in the higher courts. I took that Bill through and believe strongly that solicitors should not be discriminated against when they are solicitor advocates and qualified as such. It is reasonable that suitably qualified solicitors should be able to become Lord Advocate and this amendment seeks to ensure that there is no bar to a solicitor becoming Lord Advocate.
Solicitor advocates can choose to be qualified either in the higher civil courts or in the higher criminal courts or in both. I can well understand that the Lord Advocate might advance the view and insist on only solicitor advocates who are qualified in both civil and criminal law being considered for appointment. I believe that it will be a sad day for Scotland if the Lord Advocate seeks to close off the tap to a considerable reservoir of legal talent. If he will not agree to this amendment, I hope that in due course noble Lords will seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, this is a matter which has been considered previously during Committee stage. When it fell to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to respond he said,
"It is said that it was a radical suggestion that a solicitor should be appointed as Lord Advocate. The Lord President of the day—Lord President Clyde—wrote a memorandum to Downing Street, which was published. That memorandum states clearly that it is part of the unwritten constitutional law of the land that the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland are appointed from among the members of the Scottish Bar. That springs, in the same way as other parts of the law, from long custom. It has not been felt necessary in the past to prescribe the qualifications for office of the Scottish Law Officers and it is not clear why that should be necessary now".—[Official Report, 28/7/98; cols. 1484–5.]
When I read those words a tear of reassurance welled in my eye to know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was still properly discharging the task that he previously occupied as shop steward for the Faculty of Advocates and that even in this soi-disant, radical Government the courses of reaction should be so prominent. I was pleased and reassured by that.
However, when we came to deal with the matter at a later stage when my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved an amendment that the Advocate-General, which was a newly-created post, should be qualified as an advocate or a solicitor under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, in response the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said,
"As noble Lords will be aware, the offices of Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General are held by custom by members of the Scottish Bar".
He is still absolutely on track and discharging the proper responsibilities of a shop steward. He continued:
"It has not been felt necessary in the past to prescribe the qualifications for those offices. It is not clear why that should be necessary in respect of the new office".
I am still deeply reassured that the noble and learned Lord still has these characteristic reactions within his thinking. He continued,
"Effectively, although the office of Advocate General is new, it will have functions similar to those held by the Lord Advocate. He or she will have to give advice to the United Kingdom Government on Scots law".
Up to this point I am really charmed by the argument and very keen to part company with my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. Suddenly, a couple of minutes later, the Lord Advocate gets a radical spring in his step and goes on to ask why issues of qualification should be put in statute. He said:
"Why should the Prime Minister not be entitled, if he thinks it appropriate, to appoint a professor who is not a member of either branch of the profession?"—[Official Report, 6/10/98; col. 376.]
That might be a good argument. It is certainly an alternative argument. What we need to resolve this evening is whether the argument which the noble and learned Lord first advanced, that there are unwritten rules about the role of the Scottish Law Officers and that we should not have them in any sense put about with express requirements, but should leave the practice as unwritten—that is an exceptionally good ruse to ensure that it remains within the purview of the Faculty of Advocates—is his true position rather than the

2031
completely different argument that he then advanced: that there should effectively be no qualification requirements for any one of the three law officers.
More seriously, I must advise the Government that those are two distinct arguments and it is not possible to ride both of them at the same time. If the noble and learned Lord thinks that it is time to acknowledge, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas indicated, that there are those now qualified in the law of Scotland in respect of whom there is no reason why they should not become Lord Advocate or Solicitor General, given the rights of audience that they enjoy in the higher courts, then we should now put it on the face of the statute, or at least acknowledge that solicitors with those qualifications should be capable of occupying any one of the three roles. It is time to bring this to an end. We must discover whether these three high legal offices in the law of Scotland are to be open on a far wider basis or whether there will continue to be the narrow restriction pursued in the past.
Lord Renton: My Lords, a very powerful argument in favour of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas and an argument which has not yet been put before the House is that the amendment would have the advantage of removing at last the historic anomaly whereby a solicitor may not become Solicitor-General.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I intervene only briefly in this debate because, as the House knows, I am the only Mackay who is not a lawyer. Therefore, I am here in the guise of referee.
I have not yet heard the argument of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, but he will have to work pretty hard to convince me that my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas does not have a point. From the outside, there appear to be some pretty archaic and arcane divisions in the legal profession. Perhaps I say that because my son is a solicitor and would not qualify for either of these high offices, although I doubt whether he would want to be considered. It seems a bit ridiculous in this day and age, especially when some solicitors are allowed to appear in the higher courts, that a distinction should still be made with regard to the offices of Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General.
Unless my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas is convinced by the arguments which are about to be led by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, I shall be happy to support him in the Lobby if he chooses to press the amendment to a Division.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, as has been said, the amendment would require the law officers to the Scottish executive to be legally qualified in Scotland either as an advocate or as a solicitor. That is the extent of the amendment. It does not specify that any solicitor has to have rights of audience, so we could be talking in terms of an advocate or solicitor of one day's standing being appointed. I am sure that that was not the intention.
2032
As noble Lords will be aware, the offices of Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General are held by custom by senior members of the Scottish Bar. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, is correct that that was the position that I adopted both at the last Committee stage and in respect of the Advocate General. As I explained in Committee, it has not been felt necessary in the past to prescribe the qualifications for office of the Law Officers and I am still at a loss to understand why that is necessary now. To do so would be inconsistent with the Government's intention to legislate for a responsible parliament and executive which can be expected to ensure that holders of those vital offices are qualified for them. Surely that is the only question for the First Minister and the executive of the day.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, stated, I referred at the Committee stage to the memorandum prepared by the first Lord President Clyde in 1924. In referring to that memorandum I did not say that I considered it inappropriate to appoint as Law Officers anyone who is not a member of the Faculty of Advocates, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has suggested.
The question of a possible appointment of a solicitor to one of these offices is a matter which is not really appropriate for this Bill. As with the appointment of any Minister, including the Law Officers, the decision as to who should be appointed is essentially for either the First Minister in Scotland or the Prime Minister in the context of the United Kingdom. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a suitably qualified solicitor from being appointed as a Scottish Law Officer. But, just as I would not expect an advocate of one day standing to be appointed, I would not expect a solicitor of one day standing to be appointed.
The advent of rights of audience for solicitors and of solicitor-advocates may well give rise to a question as to whether it is strictly necessary for the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General to be drawn only from the Faculty of Advocates. I would suggest to the noble Lord that there are a number of interests which it would be appropriate to consult before proceeding with any change on this matter. In view of the wide range of the Law Officers' responsibilities, both formal and informal, the most important qualification is that he or she should command the respect of the courts, the respect of the legal profession and the respect of those that the Law Officers are appointed to advise, including the Scottish parliament.
At a previous stage of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead—who is not in his seat this evening—emphasised that the most important qualification was the need for someone of standing in the eyes of the court. That is the qualification that is required, not the formal qualification.
While it is true that more solicitors are seeking rights of audience in the supreme courts, they may only have rights if they satisfy certain criteria. Even then, at the present time very few have rights in both Supreme Courts—civil and criminal. Part of the function of the Lord Advocate is to deal with both civil and criminal

2033
law in the Supreme Court. It would be extremely difficult for someone who did not have a right of audience in both courts to hold office as either Lord Advocate or Solicitor General. This may be an issue which, in the fullness of time, the Scottish parliament may wish to consider, but it is not an appropriate subject for this Bill.
As I indicated at the outset, the amendment as it is framed could result in a newly-qualified advocate or solicitor, with no standing in the eyes of the courts, being appointed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I am puzzled by that particular line of argument. Is there anything in the statute now that prevents a lawyer who was admitted to the Bar yesterday being appointed Lord Advocate? I understand that there is not. It is common sense that he or she would not be. It is not a terribly good argument for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to be advancing that, somehow or other, this amendment would mean that people would take leave of their senses and appoint somebody who had just been admitted to the Bar.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I accept that there is no question of any statutory provision about the qualifications that are required at present. It is a matter of custom. As I have said, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, emphasised that the most important feature was the candidate's standing in the eyes of the court.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. When we discussed the issue of the qualifications of the Advocate-General in Committee on 8th October, it was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate who drew the parallel between the qualifications of those who held the office of Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General and the qualifications of the person who might be appointed to this new office of Advocate-General. Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord that it seems to be an entirely apt parallel to be drawn. But where the noble and learned Lord loses me in his argument is that he has indicated that the qualifications of the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General might be subsequently determined by the Scottish parliament. However, that cannot be true in respect of the Advocate-General because he will be an officer of the Westminster Parliament. If the Government are to develop a consistent argument, it must be true that what is said about the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General is equally true of the position of the Advocate-General.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that this amendment deals with the qualifications of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General and not the Advocate-General. We had a vote on the Advocate-General and the House decided the issue. As far as concerns the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General, the fact of the matter is that
2034
after May that matter will be devolved. Is it appropriate for this Parliament to stipulate what qualifications should be required of these two offices, which will be offices of the Scottish parliament? At the end of the day, it will be a matter for the First Minister to decide who he will appoint, and there is nothing to prevent him from appointing a solicitor or a professor of law. It would have to be someone who had a standing in the eyes of the court.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord keeps saying that it will be someone of standing in the eyes of the court. I would hope that whoever is the Premier would appoint someone to these offices who enjoyed a standing in the eyes of the court. However, I have to say that it seems to me to be essentially an irrelevance because in appointing this individual it would be wholly unprecedented for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom formally to request an opinion of the Scottish courts as to whether "X" was acceptable in the eyes of the court. It is a matter which lies within the political judgment of the First Minister or the Prime Minister of the day. I do not think the noble and learned Lord can escape by looking towards what might be the attitude of the court on the acceptability of a particular individual's qualifications and experience as a way to ensure that the right person was available.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, does he agree that within living memory, and perhaps going back centuries, every Law Officer on both sides of the Border has been appointed because he was already a King's Counsel or a Queen's Counsel?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not think I can respond to that point because I had intervened in the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I think that there have been one or two exceptions in recent years. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, could confirm his status at the date of his appointment as Solicitor-General. I think that the last Solicitor-General was made a Queen's Counsel the day before his appointment. It was certainly fairly close to it.
I accept that this is a political issue for the Prime Minister or the First Minister of the day. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, will be aware that Prime Ministers—and, it is to be hoped, the First Minister—will not operate in a vacuum and will make appropriate inquiries about prospective candidates so that they will know what view the court may hold of a particular prospective candidate.
In short, I go back to the position outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that it is essential to have someone who has the confidence of the court. We know that, in practice, the politicians will take soundings to ensure that the appropriate person has that. All I am saying is that it is not

2035
appropriate to fetter the discretion of the First Minister by putting on the face of the Bill qualifications which may in fact have the effect of excluding certain candidates. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to make one point. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, is simply trying to extend the range of people from whom the Premier may appoint the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General. If it is a choice between the Lord Advocate quoting from the grandfather of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, in 1922 and custom or the radicals on the Conservative Benches, I think, on balance, we prefer the latter.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the noble Lord's point. It is not a question of extending the range of people from whom the Prime Minister may choose. I have said that the Prime Minister can choose whom he wishes, but the practice has been to appoint someone who has had a certain standing in the courts and someone who, traditionally, has been at the Bar—almost invariably at the senior Bar. Therefore, I am not restricting the Prime Minister's choice; nor, indeed, am I restricting the First Minister's choice. The latter will simply choose who he or she thinks is the appropriate candidate to be Lord Advocate or Solicitor-General.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I have listened most carefully to what has been said and I am very grateful to noble Lords for their support of my amendment. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. Indeed, he is absolutely right to suggest that what we are seeking to do is to extend the categories of those who could be eligible for consideration.
Of course, I fully accept that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is correct to say that rights of audience in both courts would be necessary and also that the person concerned should be of standing in the eyes of the court and have its confidence. However, the noble and learned Lord advanced an argument that appointments in the past have only been made by custom and that, by custom, those appointed have been advocates.
If I may say so, during all the long and distinguished years in which Lord Advocates have been appointed, not one woman has ever been appointed. It could equally well be argued that women have not been appointed as a matter of custom. I would not for one second defend that particular argument, but what we want is the best man or woman for the job. That is the test: the best man or woman for the job, and one of standing in the eyes of the court. The person might be an advocate or a solicitor/advocate; indeed, it might be a man or a woman. However, either way, we should aim for advancement on merit. Because the noble and learned Lord is reluctant to accept that principle, I seek to test the opinion of the House.
10.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 141) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 71.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Lyell, L.

Attlee, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Byford, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carlisle, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monson, L.

Carnock, L.

Montrose, D.

Chesham, L.

Northesk, E.

Courtown, E. [Teller.]

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rowallan, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Henley, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hope of Craighead, L.

Thurso, V.

Kingsland, L.

Tordoff, L.

Luke, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Alli, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Amos, B.

Islwyn, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

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

Bach, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Judd, L.

Berkeley, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Burlison, L.

Kintore, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Crawley, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Desai, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Sawyer, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sewel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Goudie, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grantchester, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grenfell, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hardie, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Uddin, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Whitty, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Winston, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.1 p.m.
Clause 46 [Junior Scottish Ministers]:
[Amendment No. 141A not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 142:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—

VALIDITY OF ACTS OF SCOTTISH MINISTERS ETC
(". The validity of any act of a member of the Scottish Executive or junior Scottish Minister is not affected by any defect in his nomination by the Parliament or (as the case may be) in the Parliament's agreement to his appointment.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Steel of Aikwood Lord Steel of Aikwood had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 143:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—

POWER TO CHANGE TITLES
(" . The Parliament may change any of the titles listed below to titles it considers more appropriate—

(a) Presiding Officer;

(b) Deputy Presiding Officer;

(c) Clerk of the Parliament;

(d) First Minister;

(e) Scottish Executive;

(f) Scottish Minister;

(g) junior Scottish Minister.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the paucity of the Government's previous answers, I am sorely tempted. However, given the lateness of the hour I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Clause 47 [The Civil Service]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 21, line 29, after ("the") insert ("Scottish Consolidated").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to make it clear that payments made by Scottish Ministers to the Minister for the Civil Service under Clause 47(7) are to be charged on the Scottish Consolidated Fund. These payments are made in respect of the provision of pensions, allowances and gratuities for staff of the Scottish administration under the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. These schemes will continue to be administered by the Minister for the Civil Service.
As drafted, Clause 47(8) refers to the payments being charged on "the Fund", and it should be clear from a reference in subsection (5) that the relevant fund is indeed the Scottish Consolidated Fund as opposed to the Consolidated Fund—the amendment simply ensures that there can be no doubt. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Exercise of Functions]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 144A:
Page 22, line 11, leave out ("including this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a group of minor and technical amendments which clarify the meaning of "enactment" as used in the Scotland Bill. Until now we have proceeded on the basis of a general
2038
rule that references to the term "enactment" in the Bill would not include the Scotland Act itself or subordinate legislation made under it, and a number of amendments were made in Committee on the basis of that approach. We have now reconsidered the position and concluded that it would be simpler and more economical of drafting for the rule to be that references to "enactment" will include the Scotland Act and subordinate legislation under it, with exceptions in cases where this would be inappropriate. These amendments are to take account of that revised approach. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [General transfer of functions]:
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 144B:
Page 22, line 18, leave out ("including") and insert—
("() other").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is a technical change to the wording of Clause 49 to ensure that any functions conferred on a Minister of the Crown by a prerogative instrument such as a Royal Charter or warrant are transferred to the Scottish Ministers where they meet the other criteria for transfer. As I said, this is a technical change; however, I shall be happy to expand on my remarks if noble Lords wish to have any further information. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 144C:
Page 22, line 25, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 144C and 144D are minor and technical amendments. Clause 49 transfers to the Scottish ministers certain statutory functions which are conferred by "pre-commencement" enactments. Government Amendment No. 144D simply adds to the definition of a pre-commencement enactment in Clause 49(3) so that it includes subordinate legislation made under Clause 99 to the extent that that states that it is to be treated as a pre-commencement enactment. This will ensure that ministerial functions which are split using the Clause 99 power will transfer to the Scottish ministers where they are exercisable within devolved competence.
Amendment No. 144C is a minor drafting amendment which is consequential upon Amendment No. 144D. I commend them to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 144D:
Page 22, line 27, at end insert—
("() subordinate legislation under section 99, to the extent that the legislation states that it is to be treated as a pre-commencement enactment").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Devolved competence]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 22, line 42, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Functions exercisable with agreement]:
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 145A:
Page 23, line 4, leave out ("not apply") and insert ("cease to have effect in relation").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment so that the wording of Clause 51(1) is consistent with wording used elsewhere in the Bill, in particular Clause 111(2), which provides that certain provisions about the Consolidated Fund cease to have effect. I will expand on it if any noble Lord wishes. If not, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Shared powers]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 145B:
Page 23, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("under") and insert—
("(1) Despite the transfer by virtue of section 49 of any function").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I shall take Amendments Nos. 145B, 145D and 206A together. Amendments Nos. 145B and 145D are technical amendments to Clause 52. They make it clear that the Scottish ministers will be able to exercise the powers concerned only to the extent that they are transferred to them under Clause 49 and ensure that it is not only the powers that are shared with the Scottish ministers but also any ancillary duties. They also add an order-making power to Clause 52, enabling further functions to be exercisable concurrently.
Amendment No. 206A makes it clear that the order-making power introduced by Amendment No. 145D is subject to type G procedure. That means that any such order is subject to procedure at Westminster only.
The amendments introduce sensible flexibility and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 145C:
Page 23, line 22, at end insert—
("()sections 2, 11(3) and 12(4) of the Employment and Training Act 1973 (power to make arrangements for employment and training etc. and to make certain payments),").
The noble Lord said: This amendment to Clause 52 is part of a package of amendments relating to training for employment and job search and support to ensure that the former is devolved and the latter is reserved. I expect to table the other amendments which will be amendments to Schedule 5 in time for the later days of Report. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to look at the other elements of that package when we come to debate those further amendments, but I would like to describe the main elements of it to your Lordships at this stage so that noble Lords are able to consider the context in which I support the amendment to Clause 52.
However, it may be sufficient to indicate that the thrust of these amendments is to ensure that training for employment is devolved and job search is reserved. On that basis, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 145D:
Page 23, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert ("the function shall be exercisable by a Minister of the Crown as well as by the Scottish Ministers.
(2) Despite the transfer of any other function by virtue of section 49, the function shall, if subordinate legislation so provides, be exercisable (or be exercisable so far as the legislation provides) by a Minister of the Crown as well as by the Scottish Ministers.
(3) Subordinate legislation under subsection (2) may not be made so as to come into force at any time after the function in question has become exercisable by the Scottish Ministers.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 145E:
Page 23, line 28, at end insert—
("(4) Any power referred to in section 49(2)(a) to establish, maintain or abolish a body, office or office-holder having functions which include both—

(a) functions which are exercisable in or as regards Scotland and do not relate to reserved matters, and

(b) other functions,

shall, despite that section, be exercisable jointly by the Minister of the Crown and the Scottish Ministers.
(5) In subsection (4), "office-holder" includes employee or other post-holder.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 145E and speak also to Amendment No. 173B. Amendment No. 145E is a technical amendment. It simply enables the Scottish Ministers and UK Ministers to act jointly to establish, maintain or abolish a body, office or office-holder with functions which cross the reserved devolved boundary, notwithstanding the transfer of powers to Scottish Ministers by Clause 49. This is an entirely straightforward amendment which complements the provisions in Clauses 84 to 86 for cross-border public authorities.
Amendment No. 173B is consequential upon Amendment No. 145E. It adds the power introduced by Clause 52(4) to the list of provisions in Clause 85 which may be modified by Order in Council.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Community law and Convention rights]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 145F:
Page 23, line 36, at end insert—
("(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to an act of the Lord Advocate—

(a) in prosecuting any offence, or

(b) in his capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland,

which, because of subsection (2) of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, is not unlawful under subsection (1) of that section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.145F I should like to speak also to Amendment No.230A. This is part of the package of technical amendments to ensure that the relationship between the Scotland Bill and the Human Rights Bill works properly. Noble Lords agreed to the earlier part of the package on the penultimate day of Committee. The earlier amendments ensured consistency between the Bills on title and interest, definitions and commencement provisions. These amendments deal with the position of the Lord Advocate. Amendment

2041
No. 145F ensures that the Lord Advocate is able to rely on the protection afforded by Clause 6(2) of the Human Rights Bill when he is prosecuting an offence or acting in his capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths.
Clause 6 of the Human Rights Bill provides that it is unlawful for a public authority which would include the Lord Advocate to act in a way that is incompatible with a convention right. Clause 6(2) provides that it is not unlawful if the act of the public authority was because it could not have acted differently as a result of primary legislation or the public authority was acting to give effect to provisions made under primary legislation. This is intended to protect a public authority where a Westminster Act required it to breach a convention right.
The amendment ensures that this protection is also afforded to the Lord Advocate where it is alleged that he has breached Clause 53(2) of the Scotland Bill which requires him to act compatibly with the convention rights. This ensures that the Lord Advocate could prosecute an offence contained in a UK Act even if it were in contravention of a convention right. Without the amendment the offence could be prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service in England but not by the Lord Advocate. The amendment also allows him to act in his capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland if he is acting as required by a provision of the UK Act. Without the amendment disapplying Clause 53(2) he could not act in this way.
Amendment No. 230A is a consequential amendment that adds Clause 53(3) to Clause 121(2) which makes provision as to what happens to those provisions of the Scotland Bill which refer to the Human Rights Bill if they are commenced before the Human Rights Bill. It provides that they are to have effect as they will have effect when the Human Rights Bill is in force. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I can well understand why this amendment has been tabled. For the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, the amendment seeks to make the provisions of this Bill compatible with those of the Human Rights Bill. But I find it slightly surprising that it is contemplated that the Lord Advocate would ever consciously act in the knowledge that by so doing he would contravene the convention rights of either an accused person or somebody affected by the discharge of his role in investigating sudden deaths in Scotland. I find that difficult to reconcile with the position explained by the noble and learned Lord during the Human Rights Bill: that he was happy to accept that his decisions as public prosecutor would be reviewable against convention rights.
It would assist me if the noble and learned Lord could give some practical examples of primary legislation which are prima facie in breach of convention rights which would require the Lord Advocate to act in a way contrary to or incompatible with convention rights. It might persuade me that it was in the public interest that
2042
this Parliament should give him statutory authority to proceed in the way provided in the amendment. As at present advised, having regard to the fact that the Lord Advocate has a discretion, I find it difficult to believe that any prosecution would be mounted if it were known in advance that convention rights were to be breached in some way by taking the prosecution to a conclusion.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord is aware from his own experience, the question of whether or not to prosecute is always one of balance. One has to weigh up various factors.
What is being contemplated—I am not sure that I can think of a specific example—is United Kingdom legislation which creates an offence but which itself was contrary to the convention. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, that could be a conscious decision of this Parliament: to decide to pass legislation in contravention. As long as it was declared to Parliament, that would be a possibility. If an offence were created across the United Kingdom under a UK statute it would be appropriate that one of the considerations for the Lord Advocate would be whether he or she wished to prosecute in Scotland for that offence. Just as the Crown Prosecution Service in England could prosecute, it would be invidious if the Lord Advocate were precluded from prosecuting for the statutory offence under the United Kingdom Act simply because it contravened the convention right.
At this stage, I am unable to think of specific examples. Perhaps I may give consideration to that, and if I can think of a specific example I shall write to the noble and learned Lord and put a copy in the Library.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord explain what is meant by "in prosecuting"? Am I right to understand that the purpose of the amendment is to deal with decisions as to whether or not to prosecute, and not with the manner in which a prosecution is conducted? The distinction may be important in considering the rights of a person who is brought before the court. I think that the court would feel more comfortable if it were still open to challenge the manner in which an accused person were dealt with, bearing in mind the importance that the convention attaches to the right to a fair trial.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord that that is the position. I sought to explain to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that a UK Act may create an offence. The decision to prosecute in that situation may infringe a human right; that would be a factor. I would not contemplate the conduct of the prosecution being contrary to human rights—in other words, depriving an accused of legal representation, or anything of that kind. That is not what is being contemplated.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Power to prevent or require action]:
[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 146A:
Page 23, line 39, leave out from ("may") to end of line 40 and insert ("apply to the appropriate court for a declarator or declaration to that effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I debated this amendment in Committee on 30th July at col. 1624 and I need not go over the matter in great detail. I confess that the relatively short argument I advanced then is the one to which I adhere now.
The purpose of the amendment is that if the Secretary of State is of the view that the Scottish executive has acted or refused to act in a way which gives rise to a measure of incompatibility with either international obligations or the interest of national security and defence he should have two options. The first is to go to the court and seek a declarator to that effect directed against the Scottish executive. The alternative is to exercise an order-making power and to take action at his own hand.
The problem with the clause as presently drafted is that it gives to the Secretary of State power to direct the Scottish executive along the lines set out in the clause. In particular, he can direct them to take action which, one sees from subsection (3), can include making, confirming or approving subordinate legislation and introducing a Bill to the Scottish parliament.
I believe that if a Secretary of State were ever to make such an order and direct the Scottish executive, in all probability of a different political party, either to make subordinate legislation or to introduce a Bill to parliament that would provoke a political crisis of major significance. He should have two alternatives. One is to go to court for a ruling. Then it is up to the Scottish executive to decide what to do in the light of such a ruling. Alternatively, he should take action at his own hand, make his own order, which will be subject to judicial review in the courts if he exceeds the powers given under Clause 54. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 146B, 146C and 146E. These repeat amendments were tabled at Committee. I do not wish to repeat the detail of the debate which we had then. There would of course be attractions in provisions which enabled compliance by the Scottish ministers with international obligations to be enforced through the courts. But, as I explained previously, the domestic courts do not generally take cognisance of international obligations. That is why we have the limited powers of intervention in Clauses 33 and 54 for those international obligations which do not form part of our domestic law.
As noble Lords are aware, the Government regard these powers as essential back-stops; they are there as powers of last resort. One of the checks and balances on their use is the fact that the Secretary of State's use of the powers would be subject to judicial review. The question in the case of Clause 54(1) and (2) would be whether he had reasonable grounds for his belief that action is incompatible with an international obligation, or necessary to ensure compliance, or whether he otherwise acted unreasonably in making the order.
2044
As my noble friend explained earlier in connection with Amendment No. 146D, the order made by the Secretary of State must state his reasons for making it. It would be for the courts to judge whether that or any other evidence indicates that he has behaved unreasonably in making the order. They may well want to consider the nature of the international obligation concerned, but they would not be being asked to make a judgment about the compatibility of action by the Scottish ministers with the obligation.
Turning to Amendment No. 146C, I find it hard to see that a significant distinction of principle can be made between such a power for the Secretary of State to direct the Scottish executive to take action and that in Clause 54(2) which allows him to step in and take the action himself. It still seems to us that the second approach is more consistent with the devolution of responsibility to the Scottish ministers. I would argue also that it would be more conducive to agreement.
While we are considering Clause 54, I should take the opportunity to put on record my response to a point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, raised in correspondence with me during the Recess. The point was whether Clause 54(1) and (2) would enable the Secretary of State to direct the Lord Advocate to take, or not to take, action in his role in relation to prosecutions and fatal accident inquiries.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill contains a number of provisions which are designed to maintain the independence of the Lord Advocate as the public prosecutor and head of the system of deaths investigation in Scotland. In particular, Clause 45(2) provides that any decision of the Lord Advocate in his capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland shall continue to be taken by him independently of any other person.
There is no express provision about the relationship between this clause and Clause 54. However, it is certainly not the intention behind Clause 54 to compromise the independence of the Lord Advocate in either of those roles. Indeed, we do not consider that it could ever be appropriate for the Secretary of State to use his powers of intervention in that way.
I trust that your Lordships will agree that in the light of those explanations, the powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 54 are entirely appropriate.
Amendment No. 146E seeks to protect members of the executive from being subject to orders for specific performance. I would remind your Lordships that Scottish ministers will be part of the Crown and will be protected by the provisions of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which at present ensures that the Crown cannot be subject to such orders. Instead, all that the courts can do is to issue a declarator. Therefore, in our view, the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, inevitably, perhaps, when we return to issues which were debated before, the views expressed on previous occasions no more persuade one side than they do the other. I take the point about Amendment No. 146E, but as regards the other amendments, I seek to test the opinion of the House.
11.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 146A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 69.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Henley, L.

Attlee, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Blatch, B.

Kingsland, L.

Byford, B.

Kintore, E.

Chesham, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Courtown, E. [Teller.]

Montrose, D.

Cranborne, V.

Northesk, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rowallan, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Islwyn, L.

Ahmed, L.

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

Alli, L.

Amos, B.

Judd, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Bach, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Berkeley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carlisle, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Chandos, V.

Monson, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Crawley, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Desai, L.

Rea, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Sawyer, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sewel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Goudie, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grenfell, L.

Thurso, V.

Hardie, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Uddin, B.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Winston, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.35 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 146B to 146E not moved.]
Clause 60 [Scottish Consolidated Fund]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 26, line 9, at end insert—
("() When making payments under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall, in order to determine the relationship between the annual total of payments made into the Scottish Consolidated Fund
2046
and the annual total of payments made in England to provide the equivalent services, have regard to the Revenue Support Grant formula in force for the time being to determine Government funding for individual local authorities in England.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the House debated Clause 60 I was in company with a number of other noble Lords who had some concerns about this particular clause and the future of the funding of the Scottish parliament and how it was to be dealt with by the English Parliament. The Minister can feel quite pleased that his advocacy has clearly persuaded everybody else that the debate is not worth continuing, but I regret to say that nothing that he said at Committee stage has eliminated my concern.
It is worth reminding ourselves of what we are talking about. We are not talking about the Barnett formula, which is a method for distributing increases or decreases in government expenditure to Scotland. It is as simple as that. But it is worth reminding ourselves of one point and that is that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, when he introduced that formula, was of the view that over time it would lead to expenditure in Scotland converging with expenditure in England.
The noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, showed why that has not happened. He is a former Secretary of State for Scotland. He quite clearly indicated the success of a series of former Secretaries of State in their negotiations both in Cabinet and with the Treasury on behalf of Scotland. As a result of their work expenditure in Scotland continued to diverge from the average for the United Kingdom. In fact, the divergence is widening.
That leaves me with a question in the back of my mind as to what the Scottish block is and what is to happen to it in future. Is it to be the block as we see it today, simply uprated for inflation? If it is not to be that, how are changes to it to be arrived at? The Bill is singularly quiet on the subject. It is simply not satisfactory that this matter should be set in stone. For instance, how are we to deal with the consequences of either demographic or economic change, particularly, as has been mooted by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on the Front Bench, as there is a possibility of there not being a Secretary of State for Scotland?
In Clause 60 the Bill states that the Secretary of State will, from time to time, make payments to the Scottish Consolidated Fund. Presumably, if there is not a Secretary of State for Scotland the mechanism which will be on the face of the Bill will be invalid. There is then no mechanism to make payments. In his response I hope that the Minister will address that particular point.
But more than that, if there is a possibility that the Bill works in that way, does it place a constraint on the Prime Minister if, at some future point, he decides that the office of Secretary of State for Scotland is no longer appropriate and that the work can be passed on by a Minister of State, but he is constrained by the financial mechanism on the face of the Bill? We have heard so much caution from Government Ministers about getting things on the face of the Bill that might tie them down in the future.
We need to be much more open about this. For a Government who profess openness there is a singular lack of information. I cannot call it opacity because there is nothing to be opaque about: there is simply nothing. I do not find that satisfactory.
In Committee I proposed a fairly simple rudimentary formula which might have dealt with the way in which the Scottish grant might be calculated in the future. In rejecting it, the Minister made a perfectly valid point about the particular problem of the morbidity of the Scottish population. I defer to his expert knowledge of that. It is not something that I have taken to heart, although I have now taken to heart what the noble Lord said. So, I have looked for a more appropriate mechanism. More importantly, it is one that is already in use and accepted and approved by government—although I suppose it is only true to say that it is cordially disliked by those to whom it is applied. The revenue support grant formulae which are used to distribute government funds to local authorities are cordially disliked by all local authorities. That cordial dislike probably means that the formulae are fair!
When I asked to see the distribution formulae, I was offered a book well over an inch thick. I did not think it appropriate to introduce that at this hour so I have left it behind. However, as the Minister referred to morbidity, it is perhaps worth mentioning the sorts of factor that are involved in the revenue support grant calculations because the RSG bears closely on the demography of an area, taking into account the number of over-75s, pensioners and the disabled, as well as ethnic background, housing type and the number of single-parent families and educationally handicapped—and so on and so forth. It also covers matters such as miles of road, sparsity, drainage problems and sea defences. It is a widely used formula—and one that could usefully be used not to set the exact sum of the Scottish block but to determine the relationship between expenditure in Scotland and in England.
We shall have a big problem in this area in the future unless something is put on the face of the Bill. Governments in the future will have great difficulty in explaining how they are going to adjust the Scottish block—either to the other place where it will be of particular concern or to the Scottish parliament or to both. I suspect that it will be to both. It is in an attempt to reduce that problem that I have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I appreciate that Amendment No. 147 is another attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to introduce into the Bill a statutory formula based on relative need. However, as I explained in Committee, under current funding arrangements, relative need across the spectrum of government spending in Scotland is already built into public expenditure baselines. This ensures that relative need is properly captured.
As the noble Lord indicated, what the Barnett formula does is, on top of these needs-based baselines, to offer a means of determining, relatively painlessly, what the Scottish Office share of any changes to comparable
2048
public spending programmes should be. This part of the process is not needs-based. The Barnett formula is based purely on relative population numbers.
This arrangement is tried and tested; it is familiar to those who need to know about it; it has delivered fair settlements for Scotland for two decades; and it offers the prospect of continuity and stability for the new devolved administration at a time of enormous change.
Against that background, I am not at all persuaded that the noble Lord's amendment takes us forward at all. Indeed, I am bound to say that it is flawed in its conception. The fact is that a comparison of relative need in a local authority context and in a national context is a comparison of apples and oranges because national governments and local authorities do different things and have different functions. So what is an appropriate formula for one is almost definitionally not an appropriate formula for the other. It is likely that an assessment of relative needs for national governments will be carried out differently from the way we measure relative needs for local government. Local government has a completely different taxation system which is taken into account in the calculation of RSG. That will not be relevant to the relationship between the UK Government and the Scottish administration.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, raised two specific points, if I heard him correctly. First, he asked whether the whole payment into the Scottish Consolidated Fund would be invalid if there was no formula for determining it. That is not the case. The Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make payments into the fund of such amounts as he may determine. There is no requirement in the Bill to use a formula. We have indicated that we will stick with the Barnett formula, which has done the job in the past to the relative satisfaction of everybody concerned.
The other point that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, made was whether the whole thing would come to a grinding halt if a Prime Minister of the day decided not to have a Secretary of State for Scotland. The convention is that when reference is made to a Secretary of State in an Act, the powers can be employed by any Secretary of State. It is not tied to a specific Secretary of State.
I admire the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in continuing to worry at this problem and coming up with alternative means of ensuring that the allocation of funds to the Scottish parliament will be on a needs basis. It is inappropriate to look at an RSG formula. You start off at the wrong place and finish up at the wrong destination. You start off at the wrong place simply because the services and functions of local authorities are very different from the services and functions of a national government such as the Scottish executive will be.
I will have to disappoint the noble Lord again. The Government cannot accept his amendments and I trust that he will withdraw them.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. His explanation sounds like

2049
something that I used to hear from my father on occasions: "My boy, we have always done things this way. That is the way we are going to do them. That is enough". That may be enough, but I am not sure it is appropriate. I will need to consider carefully what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 [Payments out of the Fund]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 147A:
Page 26, leave out line 36.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Borrowing by the Scottish Ministers etc.]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 147B:
Page 27, line 9, leave out ("an") and insert ("any other").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 [Borrowing by statutory bodies]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 147C:
Page 27, line 29, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Auditor General for Scotland]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 148:
Page 27, line 35, leave out from ("resolves") to end of line 37.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I heard sufficient words from Ministers on Amendment No. 132 about qualified majorities. I shall not pursue this one and I will not move it.
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 27, line 37, at end insert—
("() The validity of any act of the Auditor General for Scotland is not affected by any defect in his nomination by the Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Financial control, accounts and audit]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 28, line 44, at end insert—
("() In particular, Scottish legislation under subsection (1) shall provide for—

(a) accounts prepared under paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection to comply with any directions from time to time given by the Comptroller and Auditor General as to the form of the accounts, the information to be provided in them and the general practices and principles to be observed in their preparation, and

(b) the designation of accounting officers accountable to the Parliament for the expenditure to which the accounts relate and the specification of their responsibilities.

() The Scottish legislation referred to in subsection (1) shall make provision that, if the Comptroller and Auditor General so directs, the provisions referred to in subsection (1) and the functions under subsection (2) shall, to such extent and with such modifications as the direction concerned may provide, apply to any
2050
body established by an enactment and specified in the direction, in relation to which it is within the legislative competence of the Parliament to make such provision.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the whole question of the supervision of the accounts of the Scottish parliament and the role of the Scottish parliament and the other place in dealing with the accounts. As your Lordships know, the other place has the Public Accounts Committee and there is also the Comptroller and Auditor General. The accounts prepared by government are scrutinised by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who reports to the Public Accounts Committee, which hears evidence and grills Ministers and is of very considerable importance in the other place.
It appears that in future the money sent by the other place to the Scottish parliament will not be subject to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General and will not be subject to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee. However, in the Bill it is perfectly clear that the Scottish parliament will appoint an auditor who will have most, if not all, of the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Indeed, it allows for the possibility of this scrutiny by the Scottish parliament, or a committee thereof, of the accounts of the parliament.
In Committee on 30th July I proposed an amendment which required that the procedures of the Scottish parliament should be subject to directions given from time to time by the Treasury. The Government chided me for believing in the nanny state as far as concerns the Scottish parliament—I think that is a fair shorthand of what I was accused of doing—and said that it was wrong that the Treasury should have a role in this. I have decided to return to the issue. I accept that it may be wrong that the Treasury has a role, but I am still not entirely convinced that the other place should not have some role, not so much in the detail but in making sure that the auditor in the Scottish parliament and the arrangements in the Scottish parliament give the scrutiny to the financial affairs of the government that they ought to receive.
I am sure that the parliament will set up a perfectly proper system and that there will be no problem, but I think that there is a case to be argued that either the Public Accounts Committee of the other place or the Comptroller and Auditor General should be able to say to the Scottish parliament or to the auditor in Scotland, "That is not quite right. I would rather you did it in this way because, after all, the money you are checking is the money which, up to now, I have checked". That is certainly true. Money spent by the Scottish Office has been subject to the supervision of the Comptroller and Auditor General and investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. These powers are to be moved to the Scottish parliament—that is right and proper—but I do think that there is an argument for saying that either the Public Accounts Committee or, as in my amendment, the Comptroller and Auditor General ought to at least have a back-stop power to be able to give directions about the form of the accounts, the information provided in them and the general practice and principles if it is deemed necessary.
I hope that this is not too much of a nanny, but I come back to the point that this money is being voted by the Members of the other place. They are responsible for raising the money in taxation. I think that there ought to be some back-stop provision for the accounting and control procedures in the other place to be satisfied that what the Scottish parliament is setting up is right. I have therefore put forward this amendment—it is very much changed from the amendment I put forward in Committee—as an effort to try to find a way out of what I believe is a dilemma in the responsibility for money raised by the other place. I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I appreciate the points that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has made in presenting the amendment. I am familiar with his thinking from what he said in Committee. As we see it, the noble Lord's current amendment contains three separate themes. I think it might be helpful, therefore, if I were to deal with each of those themes in turn.
First, the amendment proposes that Scottish legislation will provide that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be given the power to direct the form and, in effect, supervise the preparation of the accounts of the Scottish executive and other persons receiving money directly from the Scottish Consolidated Fund. We do not believe that that would be appropriate.
It will be the right and privilege—indeed, the duty—of the Scottish parliament to hold the Scottish executive to account. That is one of its primary roles. It must, therefore, be for the parliament to decide the detail of how the executive should account to it. Clause 66 is not intended to be exhaustive. It sets out a framework for the accounting by the executive to the parliament. The parliament itself will legislate on the detail, including the form of the accounts and the standards to be applied or how they are to be prescribed. As the noble Lord knows, we have set up a committee of financial and other experts—the Financial Issues Advisory Group—to advise the incoming parliament and executive on these matters. That group will be making proposals on the content of the annual accounts of the executive.
The accounts will be audited by the Auditor General for Scotland or auditors appointed by him. The auditors will be independent of direction both of the executive and of members of the parliament. They will be bound by their own professional standards and by those laid down by such as the Auditing Practices Board. Of course, the auditors' reports must be published.
Secondly, the amendment proposes that Scottish legislation must provide for the designation of accounting officers. We find this part of the amendment a little difficult to understand, as Clause 66(1)(e) does precisely that. It does not use the term "accounting officers"; but that is exactly what it means.
This particular provision serves two important functions. First, it gives the parliament direct access to officials on the detail of the executive's actions in undertaking expenditure. It also gives those officials a standing separate from that of their ministers—a useful safeguard for the parliament in the checks and balances required in operating any such system.
2052
Thirdly, the amendment deals with the position of other bodies; that is, bodies not receiving money directly from the Scottish Consolidated Fund. If any body receives money directly from the fund, Clause 66(1) and (2) already apply. Moreover, Clause 66(4) already makes it clear that the parliament can make further provision for ensuring the accountability of others receiving sums derived from the Scottish Consolidated Fund. The bodies to which this amendment would apply are those which will be funded, or partly funded, by the Scottish ministers. That would include such bodies as local authorities, health service bodies, non-departmental bodies set up under statute and further education colleges.
We believe that there may be some misunderstanding here. The existing legislation under which these bodies operate will remain in force. That includes the accounting and auditing provisions of that legislation, save that Scottish bodies currently audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General will in future be audited by the Auditor General for Scotland. In view of those explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw his amendment.
Midnight
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. I certainly think that as regards the final part of my amendment she has probably said sufficient to allay my concerns. Indeed, I think the same is true as regards paragraph (b) of my amendment, although those people who are much more involved in this kind of work than I will probably want to cast an eye over what she said. I understand and appreciate her arguments in as far as I have followed them.
I am still just a little unsure, however, about how the spending of public money will be overseen by an auditor or by the Public Accounts Committee. I refer to the £14 billion of expenditure which will go from the other place—it is the House of Commons not the Treasury which votes supply—to the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive. I come back to the point that this large tranche of money will, I suspect, be the only tranche of money which the House of Commons will vote upon but will not oversee. That is what bothers me. I do not particularly want the House of Commons to do the checking, but I want it, through the Public Accounts Committee or the Comptroller and Auditor General, to have some locus in making sure that the systems set up by the Scottish parliament are adequate.
However, I can see that I shall not make any progress on that, but it is a problem and I rather fear that at some time in the future the other place might get "stroppy" about it and someone might ask, "Why have we absolutely no way—through the Public Accounts Committee or the Comptroller and Auditor General—of ensuring that the £14 billion is properly spent?" In some ways I am trying to take out an insurance policy against that day, but I accept that it is perhaps rather late in the day to be taking out insurance policies in these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, I must inform the House that in the second Division this evening the number who voted Content was 38 and not 37 as announced.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 150A:
Page 29, leave out lines 4 and 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 150B:
Page 29, line 9, leave out from ("any") to end of line and insert ("other").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 150C:
Page 29, line 19, at end insert ("and "other legislation" means provision made by any other enactment").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan moved Amendment No. 151:
Before Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
("POWER TO IMPOSE LEVY
POWER TO IMPOSE LEVY ON SCOTTISH TAXPAYERS
.—(1) The Parliament shall have the power to impose on persons resident in Scotland a levy of up to three pence in the pound on those persons' income, net of income tax.
(2) A person is resident in Scotland within the meaning of subsection (1) if he owns or rents his primary dwelling place in Scotland.
(3) The Parliament shall only exercise the power referred to in subsection (1) if it passes a resolution to that effect.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order make further provision about the levy.
(5) An order under subsection (4) shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by resolution of each House.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment, along with Amendments Nos. 152, 153,155 to 159 and 231. I realise that I am going right into the Holy Grail here in this amendment and that I risk the wrath of those who drew up the White Paper, the referendum and the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I am sure also that the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, and the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, are both looking at me with astonishment. However, I want to probe the Government on several problems that have arisen.
The first problem as I see it concerns residency. We have heard the story of English based lorry drivers who will be deemed to be Scottish taxpayers, whereas Scottish lorry drivers may not. We have heard about people who use the Stranraer ferry who spend more nights in Scotland than in Northern Ireland even though they live in Northern Ireland.
Raising money through the income tax system would also cause problems. Those working for a firm which has one factory in England and another in Scotland will receive different sums of money. The trade unions will become upset about that. At the end of the day it will probably be the Scottish employer who will pay for it.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, referred to the idea of a levy. I wondered how sensible or silly an idea it was. It amounts to tax gathering rather than tax collection. Approximately 50 per cent. of Scottish voters are taxpayers. We have been told that that would approximate to an average payment from each taxpayer of £200, with a maximum of £600.
If every one of the 4.2 million voters paid, and £430 million was to be raised, each taxpayer would pay just over £100. Thus accountability would be assured. I must admit that I have always been slightly against people having a vote on other people paying taxes when they do not pay themselves.
This is a probing amendment. I have not thought through the method of raising the levy. However, I seek an opinion from the Government as to why they went down the income tax route rather than proposing a general levy. It seems to have caused a large number of problems which are becoming manifest as we progress through the Bill. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, to show a degree of patience. He raised the problem of residency and lorry drivers. He merely has to wait until the next set of amendments and I shall reveal all—or nearly all.
I also urge on him a degree of caution. He is advancing the argument that one should not have a vote without paying a degree of tax. I merely ask him to cast his mind back to the poll tax. That was the argument behind that little experiment, and look how that ended in tears. So I would dissuade the noble Lord from developing that argument too far.
I freely recognise that this set of amendments is an attempt by the noble Lord, not so much to reach the Holy Grail but dare I say it, to cut through the Gordian knot of complexity surrounding the Bill's tax varying powers. The attempt is superficially attractive—one short clause to replace seven clauses. No doubt it has its attractions. However, I must advise noble Lords that the provision in Amendment No. 151 serves only to gloss over the inevitable complexities of any tax system. Many questions are left, not so much unanswered but even unasked, in the amendments tabled by the noble Lord. They are certainly not in any sense "magicked away".
The flaw in the noble Lord's proposal is that it leaves almost all of the inevitable detail that would be required if the proposed levy was to work to an order-making power. There is a place for order-making powers in tax law, but the amendment moves the balance much too far towards secondary legislation.
It is no use arguing that there would be little need for more detail. Where, for example, is there a provision defining what income should be included in the calculation of liability? Where does the amendment state how long a levy resolution will last? Where does it state what increments the levy should be set in? Where is anything said about Scottish residents who move

2055
during the period of assessment for the levy? What, indeed, is that period of assessment? And so on, and so on.
These are details which cannot be swept under the carpet. Nor are there details such as how a levy could possibly be based upon income net of income tax when a proper assessment of income tax liability is often not finalised until after the end of the year in which the relevant income is earned. That is a fundamental problem with the approach that the noble Lord offers us. Nor are there details as to how the Scottish parliament would assess an individual's income. It cannot be assumed that Inland Revenue records could be piggy-backed. These records are protected by strong confidentiality rules, and rightly so. The Scottish parliament might therefore be obliged to create an entirely new structure for running what would in effect be a parallel Scottish income tax system. No provision is made either about the collection of the levy or implementation of the PAYE system for this purpose or for the creation of compliance and enforcement arrangements.
I could go on, but I think I may have made the point. All those issues are covered either directly in Part IV of the Bill or elsewhere in the income tax Acts of which Clauses 69 to 76 will form a part. None is covered in what the noble Lord offers us. His clause is short only because, I am afraid, a heck of a lot is missing from it and it would have to be found in some way and put in it. I do not think this is the way out of the problem that he sees.
As I have said on many occasions, we have always worked on the basis that it would be an income tax-varying power, a constrained and limited income tax-varying power. That is understood now. Everyone is working on that basis and it would be of no service to disturb that approach and try to replace it with the kind of provision that the noble Lord wishes. So I hope that with the memory of the poll tax in his mind, he will turn away from this attraction.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, as I indicated at the beginning of my comments, this is purely a probing amendment. I am well aware of the pieces that were missing from the legislation, but it is difficult to write a whole new raft of ideas in a short time.
I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply. I was fairly certain that that was the view he would take, but I thought it was worthwhile exploring the subject, if nothing else. I do not necessarily believe in it myself, but it was an option because we seem to be getting into an almighty hole over income tax and residence.
I am interested to hear the Minister say that he is about to give us a way out of it, and I look forward to it enormously. Bearing that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 [Power to fix basic rate for Scottish taxpayers]:
[Amendment No.152 not moved.]
Clause 70 [Supplemental provision with respect to resolutions]:
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Clause 71 [Scottish taxpayers]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 153A:
Page 32, line 19, leave out ("beginning or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we addressed the issue of the definition of a Scottish taxpayer at Committee stage, I gave an undertaking to look again at the drafting of Clause 71 and to meet representatives of the Law Society of Scotland, the CBI and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland. I have been able to hold those meetings.
First, I had a useful meeting on 21st October with the three bodies concerned. We discussed in particular the proposals for basing the definition of a Scottish taxpayer on the concept of residence, the substance of an amendment earlier supported by the Law Society. It was discussed at the Committee stage and has now reappeared as Amendment No. 154. However, I think that amendment may represent an earlier stage in the thinking of the Law Society from which it has now moved on.
While there were a number of differing views around the table, there was a recognition that applying the concept of residence in this context could give rise to some serious anomalies. I think particularly of the problem of, when we use ordinary residence, what happens when someone moves during the course of the tax year. We finish with the possibility of someone being both a Scottish taxpayer and an English taxpayer for the entire tax year, which is not a condition devoutly to he wished upon many.
There was, however, general acceptance that most of the difficult cases that had been identified could be removed or substantially diminished if the Government amended the definition of what was effectively a day spent in Scotland and thus eliminated the double counting that could arise under the current provision in Clause 71(4)(a). That now provides that a person is regarded as having spent a day in Scotland only if he is in Scotland at the beginning or end of that day. It was pointed out by a number of noble Lords at that stage that the famous lorry driver could qualify as a Scottish taxpayer on the basis of spending 92 non-consecutive nights in Scotland. I offered the view that that was a difficult position to sustain, particularly if regard was had to the future development of regional government, perhaps with tax-varying powers throughout the United Kingdom. One could theoretically end up as a variable taxpayer in three different areas, which would again not be a very comfortable position in which to find oneself.
The Government discussed the matter and sought a solution. We did not seek to maintain the position in the Bill. We have listened and have tabled Amendments No.153A and 153B which we believe precisely address the problem. They have the effect of ensuring that if a person is in Scotland at midnight he will only ever clock up one day spent in Scotland. This means that, assuming a person spends the whole year in the United Kingdom, he will have to spend 183 nights in Scotland before

2057
qualifying as a Scottish taxpayer. We believe that that is a very simple solution to a problem which has become too complex.
The three organisations whom I met were content with the amendments on the basis that they substantially addressed their concerns about Clause 71. I hope that noble Lords will also receive them in similar fashion and agree with them. I also hope your Lordships will accept that the discussion with the professional bodies has moved us somewhat from the position proposed by Amendment No.154. That amendment would create rather than resolve anomalies. I hope that in light of what I have said the noble Lord is able to withdraw his amendment.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I thank the Minister for coming so far to meet the concerns raised by the CBI, the Law Society of Scotland and the Institute of Chartered Accountants, who are working very much at the coalface of tax law. They commend the Government for responding positively to the points that have been raised. It would be useful if the Minister could make clear that the definition of Scottish taxpayers would not be interpreted by the Inland Revenue as including travellers from England who merely wished to stay overnight in Scotland. On a related and connected subject, I thank the Minister for his letter of 27th October on the subject of charities. I am a trustee of a charity. I should be glad if the Minister could confirm that charities in Scotland would not have to pay more tax than charities in England. Furthermore, can he expose for consultation the orders that will carry this policy into effect under Clause 75(2)?
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, given the time I shall not detain the House for long. This appears to be the only amendment that provides me with an opportunity to make the following point. Some noble Lords may recall that in July there was a lengthy debate about the unified business rate. I referred to the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce and said that not all its members were entirely in favour of the rate. I have since had a letter from Mr. Derek Marnock, the chief executive, to say that he does not recognise the views I attributed to certain members of the chamber of commerce as being the official policy of the chamber of commerce. In the 27 years I was in another place I always had extremely good relations with the chamber of commerce. I never wittingly or unwittingly misrepresent their views. I replied to Mr. Derek Marnock that, although I was satisfied that some members of the chamber of commerce were not entirely thrilled with the unified business rate—indeed, in his letter to me he goes some way towards meeting that point—I would take the earliest opportunity to make it clear that the official policy of the chamber of commerce in Aberdeen is that it has made the maintenance of the UBR one of the principal requirements for the Scottish parliament. I am happy to make it clear that that is the official view of the chamber
2058
of commerce in Aberdeen. If it is felt that in any way I misrepresented it, I apologise. It was not my intention to do so.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my amendment, Amendment No. 154, is grouped with the amendment. As the Minister rightly supposes, the amendment has been on the Marshalled List for some time and has been overtaken by his amendments.
Before I turn to these amendments, perhaps I may say that the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce sent me a copy of the correspondence. I am sure that it will be pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, has put its view on the record. It is also nice that the noble Lord has contributed. He has the honour of being the first person on the Government Back Benches who has shown any interest in this important Bill throughout the day. If my memory serves me aright, there was only a brief intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, during the first day of Report. I was about to say that the Liberal Democrats have been quite active. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Steel, wishes to intervene.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, the noble Lord is being a little unfair. He is forgetting the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, earlier in the proceedings.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I cannot remember the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hogg. Perhaps it was on the first day of Report—or perhaps in Committee.
Noble Lords: Today!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it must have been when I was not present and the lawyers were having a go. My welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is therefore not as fulsome as it would have been if he had been the first to contribute. I am glad to see that two Back-Bench Labour Members have decided that it is an important issue.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I am tempted to say that if the noble Lord came more often he would not make these mistakes.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if I came more often I might be tempted to make longer speeches!
I am grateful to the Minister for his undertaking in Committee that he would consider the matter of residence; and for his assurance that he would meet the three groups, which he did. Like them, I am satisfied that the difficulty we all appreciated in the initial definitions of residency have now been dealt with by the Government. I think that it is unlikely that anyone will be caught who is not to all intents and purposes resident in Scotland simply by staying overnight in Scotland for 183 days when a day is defined as just the end of the day. I hope that if that happens the Inland Revenue will be able to use its discretion.
I do not wish to go into the "if's and "but"s. However, I can foresee that an individual might be caught. I refer to people such as the stewardesses on the

2059
first flight down from Scotland in the morning who stay overnight in Scotland in order to be on that plane. It is not a plane I take often. They might run up 183 days. No one has come forward with an example of someone who might be in that category and whom we would not want to be caught as a Scottish taxpayer. I am fairly content that 183 days more than meets the objections we put forward at Committee stage.
Again, I am grateful to the Government for listening to the arguments put forward and for responding. I welcome Amendment No. 153A.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, about the 183 nights. Travellers would have to clock up 183 nights in Scotland. I believe that spending so many nights in Scotland is a clear demonstration of strong affection towards Scotland. I should have thought that such people would be more than happy to be classified to be Scottish taxpayers.
Secondly, I confirm that the Bill has no effect on the tax liabilities of charities. I also confirm that any orders provided for in the Bill will first be the subject of consultation. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 153B:
Page 32, line 21, leave out ("elsewhere in the United Kingdom at the beginning or") and insert ("in the United Kingdom at the").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 not moved.]
Clause 72 [Changes to income tax structure]:
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
Clause 73 [Accounting for additional Scottish tax]:
[Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
Clause 74 [Effect of tax reduction for Scottish taxpayers]:
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Clause 75 [Supplemental powers to modify enactments]:
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 159A:
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
INCOME TAX RELIEF
(" .—(1) Income tax relief at the United Kingdom basic rate will continue to be applied to personal pensions and free standing additional voluntary contributions.
(2) Where the Scottish Parliament passes a resolution to vary the basic rate of income tax in Scotland, the different sums in tax relief between the United Kingdom basic rate of tax and the Scottish varied rate of tax will be assessed direct on the individual taxpayer and collected direct from, or paid to, the individual taxpayer by the Board of Inland Revenue.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is late to try to get one's mind around a complicated argument. I do not suppose that the new clause is properly drafted by any manner of means. It is tabled more by way of a probe
2060
to see where the Government's thinking lies with regard to income tax relief as applied to personal pensions and free-standing additional voluntary contributions.
The pensions industry in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom is concerned about the impact which the Scottish variable rate might have on its ability to deliver personal pensions and free-standing additional voluntary contributions in an economic way. Currently, tax relief is given in such premiums at the UK basic rate. But, of course, if that were to change because the Scottish parliament introduced a Scottish variable rate, the Scottish basic rate would be different from the basic rate applied to people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
To date, the addresses and so forth of policyholders are not of huge importance from year to year. Most regular premiums for such accounts are received directly from bank accounts. A variety of figures has been bandied about as to the cost to the pensions industry of setting up systems to deal with this problem and keep it up to date. The Inland Revenue has made certain suggestions and the pensions industry has estimated costs to the industry of anything from £50 million and £125 million to operate the new system. Of course, that cost must be borne by policyholders. Companies would pass it on. That would be difficult, but it would be doubly difficult for the pension companies to pass that cost on to policyholders in England and Wales, because it has nothing to do with them. Therefore, the whole burden might have to be carried by policyholders in Scotland, which would add significantly to the costs of running their personal pensions or their free-standing additional voluntary schemes.
That is the problem, but there are two possible solutions. The first is to allow the basic rate relief on pensions at the UK level and do not involve SVR. The other is to allow the basic rate on the premiums and allow policyholders to obtain relief for the SVR via their self-assessment forms. It is true to say that not everybody fills in self-assessment forms so that is not much of a solution. However, I put that forward because it was one of the initial suggestions.
We know that the Government are aware of this problem and, indeed, in a letter to the CBI in Scotland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that. The CBI wrote to the Chancellor on 28th July and received a reply on 1st October which, even by Treasury standards, is a fairly slow response time. In view of the length of the letter and the fact that it did not say very much, it could have been written the day after it was received.
However it said:
"My officials are actively looking at keeping any additional compliance burden on pension providers to the minimum necessary and I agree that the forum you suggest for exploring these matters is the appropriate one. You will appreciate that any final decision on the way forward must have due regard to the Government's priorities more generally. I cannot, therefore, give you a commitment that the most favoured option of the insurance industry will be accommodated. However, it is right that every viable option is explored".
That is Treasury-speak for saying, "Yes, we think something should be done but we are not sure what it should be". I wonder whether the Government have

2061
made any further progress. It is on that basis that I put forward this amendment which would opt for one of the solutions in the first part.
I do not believe that the second option is feasible. For those people who do not fill in self-assessment forms, the matter could be dealt with by their income tax returns. However, I believe that my first proposal is better. Income tax relief would be just at the United Kingdom basic rate and the complications of the Scottish variable rate would therefore not come into the matter. It may be rough justice, but it seems to me better than imposing on the pension industry and ultimately on policyholders a considerable additional expense of having to keep a database on where every one of their policyholders is a taxpayer within the United Kingdom. I hope that that explanation is clear and brief, even at this time of night. I beg to move.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I should say first that the issue which Amendment No. 159A is intended to tackle is one with which I am already fairly familiar. I had a detailed and useful discussion about it when I met representatives of CBI Scotland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland on 21st October. I can probably do no better, in replying to the noble Lord, than to report to the House the outcome of those discussions.
The representative bodies expressed the concern of pension providers that if they were required to claim different levels of basic rate tax relief in respect of personal pensions and FSAVCs and, for this purpose, had to identify which of their customers were Scottish taxpayers, they would face compliance costs of upwards of £50 million. They argued that those costs would have to be passed on to their customers and that that might lead to some products being removed from the market.
I made it clear in response to those concerns that the Government recognise the potential problem; that we had not reached any final conclusion about the best way of dealing with it; and that we were still very much in the process of consulting the industry about possible ways forward. I made it clear that the Government's aim was to minimise compliance costs wherever possible and that the objective of the current consultation with the industry was to identify a range of possible options and the totality of the cost of each and then to consider further which represented the best way of proceeding.
This is a matter for secondary legislation rather than the Bill, and that is accepted by the professional bodies. It is one among a range of issues on which the Inland Revenue is currently consulting before making appropriate regulations. That seems to be an entirely sensible way to proceed, given the complexity of the issue.
I recognise the various options raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. They are among the range of options being considered. It would seem to me that it is not beyond the wit of man to find a system where the two data sets of Scottish taxpayers and pension holders could start talking together, and then
2062
something akin to an automatic or passive claim could be made. However, I am not in possession of sufficient detailed knowledge to come to a conclusion on that, but would hope that it would be one of the options that will at least be explored.
As I indicated, we are taking this seriously. We are consulting the practitioners most directly concerned with the issue and are committed to working with them to identify an appropriate solution to the problem. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord has heard enough to enable him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I had hoped to have rounded up a fairly successful day in hearing news that the Government had managed to come to a solution to this problem, as they have to a few others we discussed. However, this is a difficult issue and I do not pretend for a moment that it will be easy for the Government to resolve it.
I perhaps missed out one other point that concerns the industry; that is, that whatever the solution is it will incur some costs. Will the industry need to put into place that system immediately the Scottish parliament is up and running, or could it wait until the parliament decided whether or not to use the variable rate? It may be that the parliament may decide never to use the variable rate and it would be daft if the industry had to go to a great deal of trouble and expense, even if it were minimised, if it were never needed. Perhaps that is something the Minister can also reflect on in his deliberations.
As I understand it, the Labour Party is committed now to saying that it will not increase the tax, because other parties certainly are. The only party that wants to increase the tax is the Liberal Democrat Party, in order to do good works as it sees it. But if I were advising the pensions industry I would tell it not to worry too much about that. It is an important issue for the pensions industry, and that aspect ought to be borne in mind by the Minister. It is not just a question of finding a solution; it is also a question of asking whether the industry needs to do something about this immediately the parliament starts, or whether it can wait until parliament decides it wants to use the SVR.
I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughts on the matter. I hope, though not with much faith, that we will have a solution by the time we reach Third Reading so that this matter may be put to bed. The Minister indicates that that is doubtful and I appreciate that. However, I have assurances that efforts have been made to find a solution which will be to the satisfaction both of the Treasury and of the pensions industry. Mindful of the fact that the Government keep telling us of the importance of pensions, despite the £5 billion hike they have put on pensions under ACT—I could not resist that—they will attempt to find ways to help the industry if they have to change their systems in order to accommodate different types of taxpayers within the United Kingdom. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 [Limits on salaries of members of the Parliament]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 36, line 39, leave out ("ensure that") and insert ("make provision for").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to Clause 78, which deals with a situation in which an individual is a Member of the Scottish parliament, the House of Commons and of the European Parliament. It lays down, in the usual prescriptive manner, what should be done; namely, that the salary ought to be reduced.
At Committee stage I had a rather unsatisfactory exchange with the Government Front Bench. The clause says that the salary should be reduced by a particular proportion. I could not get any kind of ball park figure as to what proportion the Government might have in mind. It could be 1 per cent., and in my view that would obey entirely this clause in the Bill. It could also be 99 per cent., and that would also entirely obey Clause 78. The Government must have some idea about what they mean in this context.
However, having had lectures about not being prescriptive, I decided simply to redraft the clause by removing the prescriptions and saying that Parliament shall make provision,
"that the amount of salary payable to a member of the Parliament is in accordance with section 77",
if any salary is payable to him because he is a Member of the other place or the European Parliament and leave it like that. It should be left to the good sense of the parliament. Even at this time of night it is an amendment that should appeal to the Government. I say to them that they ought not to be prescriptive. They should trust the parliament's good sense to treat this matter properly, seriously and sensibly. I look forward to the acceptance of this amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, who, to date, has not accepted any of my bright ideas. I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I think that we are all in agreement that there should be something on the face of this Bill which deals with the prospect of a member of the Scottish parliament being in receipt of an additional salary as a Member of either the other place or the European Parliament. But the difference we have is how this is achieved. The obvious way to deal with it is to reduce or abate the salary received as a member of the Scottish parliament. Clause 78 ensures that this will happen.
I appreciate the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and other noble Lords at Committee stage who consider that this issue should be left entirely to the parliament. However, in this instance we disagree. We believe that the public will expect us to ensure that some action is taken to reduce salaries when a member is claiming a salary from another parliament. The level of any reduction, however, should be for the parliament to determine and this is precisely what this clause provides. In response to Amendment No. 162 proposed by the noble Lord we consider that
2064
Clause 78, as it is drafted, goes a long way to allowing the parliament freedom to decide what reductions there should be in the salary of those members who have a dual role.
The level of reductions to salaries is not fixed. We believe that the parliament will be responsible enough to the electorate to set appropriate levels and what we have provided in Clause 78(2) gives considerable discretion to the parliament to decide what reduction there should be.
Under this clause there is nothing preventing the parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, pointed out, from deciding that an MSP's salary could be reduced by as much as 99 per cent. or as little as 1 per cent. This will entirely be a matter for the parliament to determine, but we consider it is helpful to provide it with a framework.
Dual membership is more likely to be an issue during the early days of the parliament. Therefore, in order to have some provision in place from day one, the Secretary of State has commissioned the Senior Salaries Review Body to consider what an appropriate level of abatement should be until such time as the parliament can consider this issue. It is hoped that thereafter the parliament will continue to take independent advice on salary abatements.
In view of this explanation I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it seems to me that as the Senior Salaries Review Body is to report to the Government about the initial decisions, which can only be taken by the Government because the Scottish parliament is not up and running, then surely the latter can take advice from that body when the parliament is in existence. The noble Baroness has not in the least convinced me that the Government need to have a prescription in the clause, which is drawn as vaguely as she has admitted. In truth, it does not specify anything. I think that I could make out an argument that 99.999 per cent. was "a proportion". That does not stand up.
It would be much simpler to do what I have suggested. Clause 78 would then signal clearly to the parliament that it had to deal with this matter. It could ask the Senior Salaries Review Body what to do and that would be it. We would not have this vague provision about "a particular proportion" in subsection (2). That is what annoys me above all. If there were a third subsection stating that the particular proportion should be not more than such-and-such and not less than such-and-such—in other words, outlining the parameters—I would have some sympathy with it, but when the provisions are this vague, I believe that my suggestion is far better. It leaves the matter entirely at the discretion of the parliament. In the interests of not being prescriptive, I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
12.45 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 160) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 53.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Byford, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carlisle, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Chesham, L.

Montrose, D.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rowallan, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. [Teller.]

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Alli, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Amos, B.

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

Bach, L.

Berkeley, L.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chandos, V.

[Teller.]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monkswell, L.

Crawley, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Desai, L.

Puttnam, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Rea, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sewel, L.

Goudie, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grenfell, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hardie, L.

Uddin, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Whitty, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Winston, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.54 a.m.
[Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 not moved.]
Clause 82 [Scottish representation at Westminster]:
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 38, line 23, at end insert—
("() In rule 1(1) (Great Britain not to have substantially more or less than 613 constituencies), after "Britain" there is inserted "for the purposes of elections to the House of Commons".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had supposed that this grouping would have been included in the grouping of my earlier amendment. The Scotland Bill omits the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. These amendments ensure that the conditions of that Act still apply in Scotland but not for England for election to Westminster. This is an important clause and I know that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish will
2066
be speaking to it at length in a moment. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, put the Liberal amendment on the issue earlier and it has now been pushed through to the other place. It was won on a Division. I hope that these amendments will add to the strength of that amendment as it is considered in the other place. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 173, which, slightly surprisingly, has been grouped with those of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan.
I am opposing the inclusion of this clause as a procedural device to allow further discussion of the issue of the Scottish representation in this House after devolution. I was not allowed to table an amendment—that is, a new clause—to this effect. Had I been allowed to do so, I would have tabled it thus: "New clause. After Clause 82: (1) At least 10 per cent. of the Peers shall be domiciled in Scotland (2) These Peers shall have a duty, among others, to scrutinise the Scottish and Scots law elements of UK legislation which are reserved to the UK Parliament". In the margin alongside would have been the words "Working Peers from Scotland".
My purpose in all this is to establish a minimum quota of working Peers who are domiciled in Scotland. I should like to start by offering two definitions. The first is that of "Working Peers". By this I mean active participant Members of the House. I see the future need for effective categorising of Peers either as working Peers or as honorary Peers. The second definition is that of the word "domiciled". This is a Scots law concept relating to a person's primary residence. I see qualification by domicile as being an insurance that the Peer is subject to Scots law on a day-to-day basis.
The historical background to this issue lies in Articles 22 and 23 of the Treaty of Union 1706 and the two Acts which ratify that treaty. In 1706 there were 26 bishops and 180 Peers of England. The Peerage of Scotland then numbered 160. The population of the two countries was then in a ratio of five to one. The Peerage of Scotland was somewhat humiliated by its restriction to 16 representative Peers. They formed a group comprising 7 per cent. of this House. I would add the distinction that the process of election as a representative Peer did create a forerunner of my demand for categorisation as working Peers. Clearly, a representative Peer would only have sought the position to take an active part in the House, and of course failure to perform would have led to rejection at the next election.
Since 1963 the whole Peerage of Scotland has been admitted to this House. Their attendance to Scottish and UK matters has been, and continues to be, substantial. At the Committee stage, while opposing the Motion that Clause 82 stand part of the Bill, I complained that, of 104 Life Peers created since May 1997, only 11 were domiciled in Scotland. While that may appear to conform to my 10 per cent. requirement, I am not satisfied that we have any guarantees that these Peers will attend regularly and scrutinise Scottish legislation. Therefore, we cannot see them as 11 working Peers.

2067
I believe that we need a guarantee to be built into the Bill to ensure that there is an adequate quota of working Peers from Scotland. The need for this will become ever more urgent in view of the imminent departure of the peerage of Scotland, and of other Scots with hereditary peerages of Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
I believe that there are about 40 life Peers who are domiciled in Scotland. That number is inadequate, for two reasons: first, that 40 is less than 10 per cent. of the 600 proposed for the reformed House; and, secondly, that the 40 life Peers who I have just mentioned are by no means all in my "working Peers" category. The success of the devolution project and the future success of the United Kingdom as a multicultural and multinational state both depend, among other things, on the confidence of the people of Scotland in the future composition of both Houses of the UK Parliament.
1 a.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I should like, first, to deal with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. With these amendments the noble Lord is attempting to ensure that there will be at least 71 seats in the Scottish parliament. I have to say that I do not think it would be appropriate to amend Clause 82 in this way.
Last week, your Lordships amended the Bill to provide that the Boundary Commission should carry out a separate review of the Scottish parliamentary constituencies. We are, of course, considering the implications of those amendments. We do not think that it would be appropriate at this stage to seek to address the issue of the constituencies of the Scottish parliament by the further amendments proposed. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 173. I listened with very great interest to what the noble Earl said when proposing this amendment. However, the only difficultly was that I could not recognise the connection between what he said and what the amendment would achieve. The amendment seeks to achieve the simple deletion of Clause 82. As presently framed, the clause would, among other things, remove the rule that Scotland should have no fewer than 71 constituencies. Indeed, that instruction to the Boundary Commission would be removed, together with other aspects of the nature of the Scottish representation at Westminster in relation to the House of Commons.
In moving his amendment which would delete all those provisions, the noble Earl talked exclusively about the composition of this House. Basically, I could not follow the line of argument. I give way to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I had felt forced to adopt this as a procedural device in order to encourage the
2068
discussion which we are now having. I did not in fact want to delete Clause 82; but I did want to discuss the representation of Scotland in this House.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, as usual, the noble Earl has made a distinctive contribution to our proceedings. Indeed, he has brought to our attention for the second time the importance that he attaches to the composition of this House. However, I regret to say that there is nothing in the Bill that enables that issue to be addressed. I hope, therefore, that both the noble Earl and the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that reply. I totally accept that, while such matters are being considered in the other place, it would be inappropriate for us to discuss them. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Chesham): My Lords, I believe that I should inform the House that if Amendment No. 166 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 167.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 38, line 25, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 offer the Government two options. We discussed in relation to Schedule 1 the special position the Bill gives to Orkney and Shetland. I proposed that it should also make special provision for the Western Isles. The Minister rejected my argument and, unfortunately, I believe the House rejected it too in a Division.
However, for the sake of consistency, I mention this issue with regard to Scottish representation at Westminster. The Bill as it stands makes special provision for Orkney and Shetland. It states that the constituency of Orkney and Shetland will not include any other part of Scotland. The provision is couched in nice legalistic terms but that in effect is what it states. It defines Orkney and Shetland for all time as one constituency. My Amendment No. 167 states that the Western Isles should be given the same protection.
The Government argued in response to my amendments in Committee and on the first day of Report that I should leave this matter to the good sense of the Boundary Commission which would not include the Western Isles in with anywhere else. I think I retorted, fairly justifiably, that if the Boundary Commission is to show such good sense with regard to the Western Isles, why are the Government not prepared to trust it to show the same good sense with regard to Orkney and Shetland. My Amendment No. 166 is based on the belief that as the Boundary Commission is composed of terribly sensible people who would never consider including the Western Isles with any other part of Scotland, they are sensible enough not to do that with

2069
Orkney and Shetland. Therefore we do not need special provision in that case as we can rely on the good sense of the Boundary Commission not to do that.
However, if we do not believe we can rely on the good sense of the Boundary Commission, my Amendment No. 167 seeks to protect the position of the Western Isles. I have already explained this argument, but I think it has become more important as I understand that if the Government were to accept the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and if the electorate in this country were to accept the ditching of the traditional method of first-past-the-post—which I do not believe they will—the number of Scottish constituencies would decline even more than by the figure of about 14, which they will decline by under Clause 82(4). My rough calculation is that the average size of constituencies in Scotland under the Jenkins' proposal would be about 86,000. With the best will in the world, the Boundary Commission would find it hard to leave the Western Isles alone, especially if it was told it had to leave Orkney and Shetland alone. As I said before, there is an argument for putting the Western Isles in with Skye. That argument was proposed by some people—although not by me—at the previous boundary revision.
In the light of these new proposals on the horizon, there is an even greater likelihood that the Western Isles may well be included with a chunk of either the Inner Hebrides or the Inner Hebrides and the mainland in order to try to meet the 86,000 quota which would be the result of a combination of the Jenkins' proposal and the proposals in this Bill. Therefore I believe there is a strong case for protecting the position of the Western Isles.
I know the Government have defeated me before on this issue but I think the argument is stronger now because the number of Scottish seats will decrease and the quota will increase. I therefore would like to know the Government's view on this issue. If they tell me I must trust the Boundary Commission, I may be tempted to press Amendment No. 166, which trusts the Boundary Commission as regards Orkney and Shetland. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has told us, he sought the views of the House on whether the Bill should make provision guaranteeing a separate constituency for the Western Isles in the Scottish parliament. Your Lordships decided that it should not. Now the noble Lord has returned for our views on whether the Western Isles should form a separate constituency for the United Kingdom Parliament. I am sure it will come as no surprise to him to hear that the Government do not accept this amendment.
The noble Lord explained that he is probing as to why Clause 82(3) needs to make this provision for Orkney and Shetland and why it does not mention the Western Isles. Indeed, his amendment replaces the reference to the Orkney and Shetland constituency with a reference to the Western Isles constituency.
2070
The provisions in Schedule 1 and Clause 82(3) give effect to the agreement reached in the constitutional convention that there should be separate Scottish parliamentary representation for Orkney and Shetland—nothing more and nothing less. That is what the reference in this clause of the Bill is all about. It is to secure the representation in the Scottish parliament of separate constituencies for Orkney and Shetland.
There is no need to make equivalent provision for the Western Isles. We are making no changes to that constituency in the Bill. However, we have decided that it would be right to ensure that Orkney and Shetland have separate representation in the Scottish parliament and so have split the constituency. We are not splitting a Westminster constituency in relation to the Western Isles. That is what Clause 82 is all about. The noble Lord is trying to extend the effect of Clause 82 beyond that for which it was devised.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We had this difficulty in Committee, and I am still in some difficulty. I appreciate that Schedule 1 states that in the Scottish parliament the Isles of Orkney and the Shetland Isles should have an MSP each. I am not arguing about that; it is fine. What I still do not understand is why the provision has to be included in a clause dealing with the arrangements at Westminster.
If there were no reference to Orkney and Shetland in the clause, Orkney and Shetland would still have an MSP each under Schedule 1. I am puzzled by this argument. The Minister used it in Committee, and a number of noble Lords intervened and pointed to the rubric; namely, "Scottish representation at Westminster". We are talking about Scottish representation at Westminster. Even if this clause were not in the Bill, Orkney and Shetland would still have an MSP each. So I am very puzzled. I can see other arguments to the effect that Orkney and Shetland should always be protected in a UK context; however, I find it hard to see how the separate Orkney and Shetland MSPs are dependent on this part of the Bill.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, one thinks of what would happen if Orkney and Shetland, or part of Orkney and Shetland, became part of another constituency which included an area other than Orkney and Shetland. The build-up to the representation within the Scottish parliament would be disturbed, because the building block would not be there. There is the building block of a Westminster parliamentary constituency which consists entirely of Orkney and Shetland, and solely of Orkney and Shetland, and it is then split. Separate representation for Orkney and Shetland cannot be achieved if part of Orkney and Shetland is linked in a Westminster constituency with another area. I believe that explains the point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand that. If the Government do not amend the Bill which currently provides for 129 MSPs into the future, with no provision for them to decline to match the Westminster seats, the argument the Minister has

2071
made falls. But so long as we are doing a one-to-one and keeping the number of MSPs and MPs coupled, at last I understand his point. However, he would have to reconsider the argument if the Government are able to accept the principles behind the amendment about the 129, carried against the Government.
I think I understand slightly better why the Government have the provision in Clause 82. At this time of night, I shall not have a dispute between Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 167 to 172 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
Clause 85 [Power to adapt etc. cross-border public authorities]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 173A:
Page 40, line 1, leave out ("(if any)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an appropriate amendment on which to finish our deliberations for the evening. It is a drafting amendment which I can safely say is both minor and technical. It simply deletes the redundant words "if any" from Clause 85(2)(c). It is
2072
based on the startling proposition that one clearly cannot amend the constitution of an authority if it does not have one in the first place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 173B:
Page 40, line 2, after ("section") insert (" 52(4) or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before I move that further consideration on Report be adjourned, I should like to congratulate the House on the expeditious way in which it has dealt with a long list, including an important Statement. It just goes to show what the threat of an early breakfast will do!
I am extremely grateful and I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement. The Commons reasons were ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past one o'clock.

  National Census: Religion
  National Census: Religion
  Police Corruption
  Police Corruption
  City Status Award
  City Status Award
  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Personal Medical Service Pilots
  Personal Medical Service Pilots
  Unauthorised Camping: Good Practice Guidance
  Unauthorised Camping: Good Practice Guidance
  River Ure: Water Quality Objectives
  River Ure: Water Quality Objectives