Sitting of 21 October 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: When he proposes to set up the Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs; and if he will ensure that it considers the issue of feeds containing genetically modified material. [93385]
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: If he will make a statement on the requirements governing the labelling of animal feeding stuffs containing genetically modified crops. [93392]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs held its first meeting on 24 September. It will have an important role in considering both the safety and labelling of genetically modified material in animal feed.
    Mr. Atkinson: I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome her to the Dispatch Box in her new role. It is nice to see the north-east gain yet more power in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    Is not the issue of genetically modified material in animal feed vital, particularly for the British pig and poultry industries? A threat to ban it, would be the last straw for those industries, which would then face substantial extra costs getting a separate supply of GM-free soya, which is used for animal feeds. Will the Minister ask the committee to consider this matter urgently and to state that there is not a shred of evidence that this material is in any way injurious to human health?
    Ms Quin: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the beginning of his supplementary question. Secondly, we attach importance to the work of this committee, which we feel will be able to examine the different aspects that the hon. Gentleman has raised. As a new MAFF Minister, it seems to me that it was a failing of the previous Government not to set up such a committee when they could have done so. I am glad that
    554
    it began its work recently and that my noble Friend Baroness Hayman, the Minister who deals with these issues, was able to attend the first meeting and thereby show the importance that Ministers attach to its work.
    Mr. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new responsibilities and wish her well. She will know that a large fraction of the United States production of soya and corn is from genetically modified crops and that large quantities are exported unsegregated to the European market for incorporation into animal feed. Should not all animal feeds containing GM crops be labelled as such? Will she confirm that there is no independent, publicly funded research in Britain into the safety of feeding GM crops to animals?
    Ms Quin: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. We believe that labelling is a major aspect of this issue. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), for the work that he did on labelling and giving these issues prominence, not just here in the United Kingdom, but within the European Union. Because of that we are making progress within the European Union towards proper labelling.
    My hon. Friend mentioned the question of separation. There seems to be increasing pressure now on suppliers in the United States to separate crops. Therefore, in future it will be much easier to tell the source of these products—whether they come from a GM or non-GM source. The wider work that is being done on labelling in Brussels today is an important part of that pressure. We believe in examining all aspects of these issues. Indeed, the committee to which I referred will certainly be able to look at safety and other issues.
    Mr. Norman Baker: May I press the Minister a little further? Does she agree that farmers have a right to know what they are buying, and consumers what they are eating further down the food chain? Will she guarantee that any animal feedstuffs containing GM material will be labelled so that farmers know what they are buying, and have the right to segregate the supply of non-GM material should they so wish?
    Ms Quin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, from the outset this Government have had a commitment to consumer and producer information so that people know what they are buying and will not be misled into buying products which turn out to be different from what they thought. We have pursued that both in the European Union and at home. Although we are pressing for animal feeds to be labelled in the European Union, in the meantime—because of the length of time that it takes to get those arrangements agreed—we are also pursuing a voluntary labelling system within this country.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If he will raise with his European counterparts the incidence of fraud in the common agricultural policy. [93386]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Government take every opportunity to raise this issue with other member states

    555
    and with the European Commission, in order to build support for measures both to reduce fraud against the CAP budget and to improve the financial management of the budget.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of the animal traceability scheme through the establishment of the British cattle movement centre in my constituency by this Labour Government, will not only help to resolve at an early stage the crisis of BSE, but will help to secure safeguards against fraud under the European Union beef regime? Can we have an assurance that schemes such as the one operating in Workington will be introduced throughout the European Community?
    Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend—Workington is leading the way in Europe. The introduction of traceability is not only an important protection and reassurance to consumers but an important safeguard for the public purse on the beef premium regimes.
    Mr. Michael Jack: When the Council of Ministers announced the lifting of the beef ban and the resumption of British beef exports to Europe, many farmers thought that the statement was correct, but they now consider it a fraudulent declaration. It was a hollow statement; it clearly did not open the door to British beef exports, particularly to France. Many farmers will think that the French are now acting fraudulently because they are not adhering to that European agreement. What practical steps will the Minister now take to open the door, beyond simply registering his discontent at Tesco supermarket with an empty trolley? So far, his words about getting beef back into France have been as empty as his trolley.
    Mr. Brown: That is an ingenious attempt to link the French failure to lift the ban to the use of the word "fraud" in the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). If the right hon. Gentleman had been a little more assiduous and paying attention, he would have noticed that I intend to answer Question 10, which deals directly with that matter, at the end of Question Time.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: On the question of the fairness of the common agricultural policy, does my right hon. Friend find, as I do, that most farmers are in favour of Britain's entry into the single currency because it will bring stability to the fluctuating payments that they receive under that policy? Arable payments alone amount to an injection of some £55 million into Suffolk's rural economy. Would not a path that led to withdrawal from the European Union defraud our farmers of those valuable payments?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the exchange rate in agriculture and, by implication, to the importance of the agrimonetary regime. The Government's approach to the broader question that he raised is the right one, and I shall certainly not add any remarks to what has already been said on that subject.

    Livestock Producers
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: What plans he has to support the profitability of hill and upland producers of livestock; and if he will make a statement. [93387]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We have committed an extra £60 million to next year's hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme. Upland producers will also benefit from the other measures we have announced recently to ease pressure on the livestock sector.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister concede that the profitability of hill livestock producers has collapsed recently? It has done so to the extent that, for the first time, thousands of families in the hills who produce livestock, have dependent children and have capital assets of less than £8,000 are eligible for the working families tax credit. Surely it is in no one's interests that people have to rely on the benefits system to supplement agricultural wages. I acknowledge what the Government have done, and the £60 million is welcome, but we have had £60 million a year on a one-off crisis basis since 1996. Is it not time that we had a long-term strategy for the future viability of livestock producers which does not sentence them to starvation incomes?
    Mr. Morley: We concede that there are difficulties in the hill livestock sector, which is why we have found the extra £60 million for that sector. That money is on top of the £700 million that is already going to beef and sheep producers in the sector. There are long-term issues, and that is why we are discussing the reform of the hill livestock compensatory allowances system into area-based payments. We have allocated environmentally sensitive area payments and stewardship payments. We are also talking to groups such as the National Sheep Association about the future of livestock. There are complex issues about prices and markets and there has been a considerable increase in the size of the national flock, which has risen by 1.27 million in the past year alone.
    Charlotte Atkins: Is not one of the problems the profiteering of the supermarkets, which buy cheap and sell expensive?
    Mr. Morley: There is certainly an issue of sales and markets which must be addressed. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that supermarkets are currently subject to investigation by the Competition Commission.
    Mr. David Maclean: Does not the Minister recognise that it is not a matter of "just some difficulties out there", to use his words? The whole farming industry is in crisis, and the Government are presiding over the devastation of our upland areas, with huge environmental consequences unless we get action from the Government soon—and more action, not just a promise from the Minister not to drink Beaujolais Nouveau in future.
    Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have noticed the £150 million aid package recently

    557
    announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister. There certainly are difficulties in the agricultural sector. Some of those difficulties are the result of short-term cycles, but some of them are much more persistent and are caused more by structural problems. The upland sheep sector falls into the latter category.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I remind the Minister of the crisis in the sheepmeat industry. Will he consider very carefully a ewe cull system, which is urgently required? If the only objection to a calf cull system in Wales is the fact that it would be treated differently from England, why do not we have a UK-wide calf cull system?
    Mr. Morley: On the first point, the ewe cull system must be subject to state aid rules, and it is unlikely that it would be approved by the European Commission. Indeed, the Commission has already made an announcement on the proposals by the Welsh Assembly.
    We have no plans to introduce a calf cull scheme. The date for the end of that scheme was made very clear. The scheme has been extended twice already, and there are signs that a market for cull calves is establishing itself in the meat sector.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Minister agree that the lifting of the ban on beef on the bone would be one of the best things that could happen to livestock producers? Why is policy in England now being made by unelected bureaucrats in Cardiff and Edinburgh and not by the elected Minister? How much longer will it be before English consumers are allowed to eat beef on the bone, as the chief medical officer for England has now recommended it is safe to do?
    Mr. Morley: My right hon. Friend has made the position clear several times. We have always said that we shall advance on the basis of independent scientific advice. I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the Conservatives, apparently, would ignore the advice of chief medical officers, no matter what it was. Surely it is much more sensible to approach the issue on a UK-wide basis. That is why discussions are taking place with the devolved assemblies to try to reach agreement on that. That is a sensible way to proceed on this issue.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems about handing out these subsidies is that, for example, in the last year during which the Tories were in power, nine separate agribusinesses got £1 million each in subsidies? The system has been skewed towards the big business farmers, as opposed to hill farmers and all the rest. Now that the Government are waging war against the forces of conservatism, when are we going to see the back of this common agricultural policy?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in that one of the problems with agriculture is the distorting effect of the subsidies from the common agricultural policy. We have made it clear that we want to progress with reform of the CAP, to move away from production-based subsidies and to direct that money towards the rural development programme,
    558
    agri-environment and the broader rural economy. That is the way forward for a long-term future for agriculture, and we intend to pursue that as part of our strategy.

    Food Imports
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement about his powers to ban importation of foods whose production standards are illegal in this country. [93388]
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What plans he has to ban the importation of meat that does not meet United Kingdom standards of hygiene and welfare; and if he will make a statement. [93397]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Food produced within the European Union must be produced to common hygiene standards, and imports from outside the European Union must meet the same, or equivalent, standards.
    It would be incompatible with the treaty of Rome and with World Trade Organisation rules to ban imports of meat because of the animal welfare standards under which it had been produced. We are actively seeking to improve EU-wide welfare standards.
    Mr. Winterton: I think that this House is at its best when it is courteous, and my question to the Minister will be courteous. Does he agree that falling farmgate prices and retail prices are hitting the pigmeat industry in this country? Does he not further agree that the pigmeat industry in the United Kingdom contracted by 12 per cent. last year—unlike the pigmeat herds in Germany, Spain, Denmark and Holland, which expanded during the same period? Does he agree that we are importing into this country pigmeat that is reared by methods so cruel that they have been banned in this country?
    Why will the Minister not put a block on pigmeat imports into this country from those countries that are using methods that are so cruel that they are banned here so as to help our pigmeat industry, as it so justly deserves to be helped?
    Mr. Brown: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I thank him for his courtesy, which I assume is intended as a lesson to those on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that I have not got him into any more trouble with his Front Bench than he is habitually in.
    Can we use article 36—it is a proper question—to ban the import of pigmeat that is produced either with meat and bonemeal or in stall-and-tether systems, which are banned in this country? I have taken the best possible legal advice and I am told that I cannot impose such a ban. I am today placing this legal advice in the Library so that all Members can see it for themselves.
    Miss McIntosh: If the Minister will not ban beef products, will he respond to a plea from the heart from me and from farmers in the Vale of York, who have never suffered such dire financial straits in the history of farming? If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to ban the use of meat and bonemeal for fear of cross-contamination, does he accept that there is an equal danger of cross-contamination in other countries where it

    559
    is fed, and that we should not import that meat? Does he agree that the stall-and-tether ban should be imposed much earlier in the European Union, and will he use his good offices to ensure that that happens? If he is not prepared to introduce a ban, will he at least encourage the labelling of feedstuffs so that the consumer can decide where the best hygiene and welfare conditions are met—in the production of meat in this country?
    Mr. Brown: I agree with what the hon. Lady says about labelling. I am currently having a hard look at labelling regulations and I hope to have something to say to the House on that topic within a matter of days. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that here in the United Kingdom we impose higher welfare standards on the industry than those that are imposed elsewhere. Back in 1991, we introduced an eight-year changeover period in response to public pressure. It is up to the public to back the higher welfare standards that they clamoured for us to introduce. It is incumbent on each and every one of us to stand the UK industry's corner on this matter. When I return to the issue in the next few days, I hope to have something to say about how together we can help in achieving that objective. As I have said, I shall be returning to these matters soon.
    The hon. Lady referred to cross-contamination, and it is only fair to give a complete answer. We have rules because of BSE. There is not BSE in the pig herd, but there is a danger of cross-contamination in terms of meat and bonemeal. With officials in my Department I am again approaching the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to ascertain whether we can find a way to meet its legitimate concerns about the commercial use of the material, rather than imposing an absolute ban. The hon. Lady follows these matters closely and will know that I have tried to do so once already and received a dusty response from SEAC. The Department, along with the Meat and Livestock Commission, will return to SEAC. We hope to have a meeting in November.
    Mr. William Thompson: If the Minister cannot ban food coming into the United Kingdom that is of a lower quality than our product, will he at least ensure that all catering contracts that are let by the Government, public bodies and the security forces insist that the food is of the same standard as that which is required of the United Kingdom product?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues and I are due to meet at 1 pm today to discuss these matters further, particularly in respect of Northern Ireland, and I hope to explore them in detail with him then. I hope to be able to give him a response on the specific point in the next few days. However, I cannot issue instructions to other public sector purchasers regarding their purchasing regime. What I can do is to draw their attention to the strong case that can be made for the UK pig sector, and I intend to do that.
    Mr. John Swinney: Bearing in mind all that the Minister has said in reply to numerous questions on the subject, and if legal advice prevents him from banning imports of substandard produce, are there measures that the Government are prepared to take to relieve the enormous hardship suffered by pig producers throughout the United Kingdom, and to compensate those
    560
    producers for the investment that they made in order to deliver a superior animal welfare regime at the request of the public and the House?
    Mr. Brown: Any attempt by the UK Government to compensate for the investment in the animal welfare element would undoubtedly fall foul of the state aid rules, but I am looking hard at everything that has been proposed to me—believe me, there has been a wide range of suggestions—to see what more can be done.
    Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister follow the precautionary principle and prevent the import of meat if he or his officials cannot be satisfied that the veterinary and hygiene inspection in the country of origin is up to the standards that we require? If he cannot even do that, can he at least address the issue of labelling? Is it any wonder that people are confused when St. Ivel yoghurt is made in France, and Carte-D'or ice cream is made in Gloucester? Can we have proper labelling of country of origin and production methods, so that the consumer is not confused and the producer has fair competition?
    Mr. Brown: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, we already do that. Food that does not meet our hygiene or health standards does not get into the food chain. It is banned; it is unlawful. On his second point about the animal welfare element and the country of origin, I am taking a hard look at the labelling regimes. I agree that the example that he cited is clearly misleading.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: If it is not safe for British pig bones to be fed by British farmers to British pigs, why can those same British pig bones be exported abroad, used by continental pig farmers to feed to their pigs, and the pigmeat from those pigs sold back to British consumers? Why is that safe?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should know the answer. If he had read the last response from SEAC, he would understand that it is trying to protect against cross-contamination in the UK chain and the possibility of the fraudulent mixing of pigmeat and bonemeal with cattle and other meat and bonemeal, and that getting into the market and breaching the powerful public protection measures that we have uniquely in the UK to protect against BSE.

    Battery Hens
    Mr. Ivor Caplin: What steps he is taking to improve the welfare of battery hens. [93389]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): A new EU directive on the welfare of laying hens was agreed on 15 June. It requires all member states to ban the conventional battery cage from 1 January 2012 and to apply improved standards to its use in the meantime.
    Mr. Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him and other Ministers on the success of those negotiations. I draw to his attention the excellent campaign run by Compassion in World Farming over many years to end the rearing of battery hens in the EU.

    561
    Can he reassure me that during the next 10 years of negotiations, the Government will ensure that third-country imports to the EU do not lessen the important animal welfare improvements that we have made by ending the rearing of battery hens in cages?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. I pay tribute to the work done by CWF, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other groups, which put forward a strongly argued case on scientific and welfare grounds on such issues as battery cages. It is encouraging that the European Council of Ministers has embraced animal welfare issues on a Europe-wide basis, which is different from some of our discussions on the pig industry, for example, which were unilateral. Addressing such issues in Europe is one thing, but we must also address welfare standards in the World Trade Organisation talks. I am pleased that that was in the minds of Ministers at the Agriculture Council. I believe that welfare standards and labelling will feature in the forthcoming talks.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: I believe that I am correct in saying that, yesterday, the House was told that a plant in the far east had been licensed to supply poultry products to this country or to the European Union without even an inspection. There is a great deal of hypocrisy here. How will the Government be sure that food imported from third-world countries complies? If it does not, and they cannot give a categoric assurance, does it not make a complete mockery of all that has been said in answer to previous questions this afternoon?
    Mr. Morley: Plants which export to the EU have to meet EU standards and they are inspected by EU Commissioners. The delegation which inspected Thailand included a British vet. The EU is bringing forward a report on the standards of poultrymeat from third countries. That report is overdue, but we are pressing for it to be made available as quickly as possible so that we can see its conclusions.

    Organic Food Production
    Mr. David Borrow: What action his Department is taking to assist farmers wishing to produce organic food. [93390]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We have allocated more than £16 million of aid under the organic farming scheme, we are funding the organic conversion information service and we are spending more than £2 million this year on organic research and development.
    Mr. Borrow: I welcome the Government's increased spending on the organic farming scheme and the review announced last week or the week before into that scheme. Given that more than 70 per cent. of organic food consumed in the United Kingdom is produced overseas, will my hon. Friend consider setting clear targets in that
    562
    review to reduce dependence in the UK on the import of organic food and to increase production of such food in the UK?
    Mr. Morley: That is certainly a helpful suggestion. Obviously, we want the organic sector in Britain to expand and we have committed substantial extra resources to that. The area under organic production increased by 400 per cent. in the past 12 months. It is right to say that 70 per cent. of organic food is imported, but we are self-sufficient in some organic products, such as organic meat, and one reason for the review is to consider those areas where we should be giving some priority to addressing the marketing balance.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Many of my farmers in the dairy sector are switching to organic milk production. In order to keep public confidence in organically produced milk, which is not treated in any way—it is not pasteurised—it is fundamental that the Government resolve the problem of bovine TB as fast as possible. Of the 10 proposed triplets, the Government have set up only two and that is not good enough. When will the Government take some real action on bovine TB?
    Mr. Morley: Bovine TB is a serious problem facing the dairy herd, with welfare issues for badgers as well as cattle. We have set up five triplets and we are implementing the Krebs programme, on which there was a great deal of discussion. The advice from independent scientific groups revealed great difficulties in dealing with bovine TB, but this is an issue that we cannot ignore, and, difficult though it is, we are addressing it.

    Pesticides
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What assessment he has made of the operation of the regulatory framework in respect of pesticides use in the United Kingdom. [93391]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): Pesticides are strictly regulated in this country under national and EU rules. The EU regime for plant protection products is intended to replace national rules but has made slow progress. However, we consider our national regime sufficiently strong to protect public health and the environment until the EU system is fully up and running.
    Mrs. Campbell: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new responsibilities on the Front Bench, and I invite her to agree that genetic modification of crops offers a huge potential for a reduction in the use of pesticides in agricultural crops. Does she further agree that, for that reason if for no other, it is important that we resist the demands that are coming forward for the abandonment of genetically modified field trials?
    Ms Quin: As my hon. Friend knows, we believe that the field trials are important and should be proceeded with. I have recently looked at some of the past year's debates in Hansard. We have had a good debate on these issues here, but often in the press there has been a great

    563
    deal of scaremongering and inaccurate reporting, which does none of us, and in particular the British public, a service.
    I also agree with my hon. Friend that we need to consider evidence on the potential reduction in the use of pesticides. Information reveals examples of a significant reduction in pesticide use, and it is obviously important to encourage the development of technology that helps to reduce the use of pesticides generally by much better targeting and through the use of much more sophisticated equipment.
    Mr. James Paice: On behalf of the official Opposition, I welcome the right hon. Lady to her new role in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—we are pleased to see her. I also welcome the statement, which her right hon. Friend the Minister repeated last night, that the Ministry is opposed to a pesticides tax. We all welcome and support that position, but will she explain to us and to British farmers why the same arable and livestock pesticides are up to 30 per cent. cheaper in Europe than in this country? British farmers are being penalised by unfair competition because British regulations prevent them from importing those same pesticides to replace the more expensive ones available in this country.
    Ms Quin: The regulations to which the hon. Gentleman refers were in force under the Conservative Government. I have described how we are taking those regulations forward at national and European level, although it is important to look at the cost structure in such issues—and we are doing so at present.

    Distant-water Trawlermen
    Shona McIsaac: When he expects to complete his report on compensation for distant-water trawlermen. [93394]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Agriculture and Trade Ministers are jointly examining the case for providing compensation, and I hope that that will be completed shortly.
    Shona McIsaac: My question was about compensation for distant-water trawlermen. I believe that Question 8 was taken earlier, which may have led to some confusion.
    Madam Speaker: Would the Minister repeat the answer?
    Mr. Morley: I shall repeat it slowly.
    Agriculture and Trade Ministers are jointly examining the case for providing compensation, and I hope that that will be completed shortly.
    Shona McIsaac: I apologise.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady might just say thank you.
    Shona McIsaac: We are here to serve, Madam Speaker.
    564
    Do my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Front Bench appreciate the deep sense of injustice felt by people in the fishing communities of Cleethorpes, Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood when they keep hearing of the amount of money that goes to certain sectors of the farming community, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred earlier? They feel that time and again, they are being overlooked. When will the Department put right that injustice, which was perpetrated throughout the Tory years? All the warm words in the world will not heat the homes or pay the bills for those men.
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case on behalf of distant-water fishermen, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). The matter is under consideration, but, in all fairness, this is not a simple issue. We are dealing with events of more than 20 years ago, as well as the issues of cost, the tracing of people who were sailing in those fleets and the mechanism and legal process through which we could deal with the matter.
    However, my hon. Friend makes a strong argument and has a powerful case. For that reason, there will be a joint study by the two Departments and consideration will be given to how the matter can be addressed and whether it will be possible to do so.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: What confidence can hon. Members on either side of the House have in what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said, when one considers the shambles that the Government are making of safety compensation? Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, just before the European elections, the Deputy Prime Minister travelled to the west country to say very publicly that he had overruled the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that he was restoring the safety compensation grants that his right hon. Friend had cancelled? This week, the Western Morning News reports that a MAFF spokesman has now said that the Minister is overruling the Deputy Prime Minister and those compensation grants will not be paid at all. Does not the British fishing industry, which has a right to expect better from the Government, looks at that shambles and views the Government with a mixture of pity and contempt?
    Mr. Morley: The British fishing industry has a right to expect better than that question from the hon. Gentleman. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that fishing safety grants will be reinstated, and MAFF has made no attempt to overrule that.
    The issue that the hon. Gentleman seems to misunderstand is that some sections of the fleet—the under 12 m fishing fleet, in particular—never had access to safety grants. There may well be new safety standards for those sections, and as the MAFF safety grants have finished, it is right that before any new grant is decided, we should look at its implications, how it should be used, who should get it and where the priority should lie. That is under consideration, and an announcement will be made in due course.

    Farmers' Incomes (Leicestershire)
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the level of dairy and beef farmers' incomes in Leicestershire. [93396]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Income estimates for farm types are not available at county level. The average net farm income for full-time dairy farms in England was £11,600 per farm in 1998–99. There are no estimates for specialist beef farms, but lowland cattle and sheep farms in England made an average net loss of £1,000 per farm.
    Mr. Robathan: The Minister thereby acknowledges the enormous crisis in both beef and dairy farming. There is no point in his pretending that it has nothing to do with the Government, because it does. I cordially invite him to my constituency to visit the dairy and beef farmers whom I saw during the summer recess. They are struggling to keep their heads above water—or will not survive. This is a real crisis. Will the Minister: first, lift the ban on beef on the bone—we may hear about that later—which his chief medical officer has set; secondly, review the calf-processing aid scheme; and, thirdly, take action regarding Milk Marque and the future of dairy farming?
    Mr. Brown: I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says about farm incomes on behalf of his constituents. I also acknowledge that I, as Minister, and my Department, have a duty to help both the beef and dairy sectors through these difficult times. The hon. Gentleman suggests three remedies. On beef on the bone, I accept the United Kingdom chief medical officer's advice—he wants to lift the ban. I believe that the right thing to do is to proceed in a co-ordinated way throughout the United Kingdom, but I hope that we can do that shortly.
    I extended the calf-processing aid scheme twice: the first time getting money from the reserve and the second time using all the available moneys in my Department's budget, in order to continue the scheme at a lower rate. The industry could therefore see that the scheme was being phased out. The calf-processing aid scheme has now come to an end, and I do not intend to reopen it for the remainder of this year, when the European Union-wide scheme closes.
    I would like to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency to meet lowland farmers and discuss what can be done to help. I have had a hard look at what can be done to help under the different common agricultural policy regimes, and there really is not much scope. However, I hope that my intervention and that of the president of the National Farmers Union on the regulatory burden of the sector will afford the hon. Gentleman's constituents some help.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: May I, too, encourage the Minister to come to Leicestershire? My constituency is next door to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). The Minister will find a similarly depressing picture. The farmgate price of milk has gone down in the past month, causing huge hardship for my dairy farmers. My hon. Friend's point about the calf-processing aid scheme and other matters relating to beef farming in our county cannot be too strongly stated.
    566
    Agriculture in our area is in a terrible state, and it is incumbent on the Minister to come and see us to ensure that he is fully acquainted with what is going on.
    Mr. Brown: All of that is fairly stated. On the reshaping of Milk Marque following the Competition Commission report, it is right to say publicly that the Milk Marque leadership has acted bravely in difficult circumstances and is advocating the right solution for the producer side of the industry.
    I have worked closely with the Milk Marque leadership and the Dairy Industry Federation on the issues raised by the Competition Commission. I shall do what I can to help to get the sector through these difficult times, which are the more so because of the depressed price of milk at the moment. I would happily visit the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency at the same time as I visit that of his hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). Perhaps we could arrange a joint meeting.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Glidewell Report
    Mr. Andrew George: What progress he has made on the implementation of the Glidewell report; and if he will make a statement. [93415]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): On 28 June this year, the Attorney-General provided the final Government response to the Glidewell report. A chart providing details was placed in the Library. Sixty-four of the 75 recommendations are shown as having been accepted, accepted in part or in principle, or implemented. Work continues to implement the recommendations involving substantial change for the better in the Crown Prosecution Service. Only two recommendations are shown as rejected: they are minor recommendations about costing and witness warning. The remaining nine recommendations are shown as having been noted or considered.
    Mr. George: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for that reply. What is the proposed timetable for the implementation of the remaining recommendations? What assistance does he propose to give members of the Crown Prosecution Service who want to appear in the higher courts to represent CPS cases?
    The Solicitor-General: The remaining recommendations are in the process of implementation. The recommendation on criminal justice units is under consideration: agencies are working together in the different areas to implement it.
    On the hon. Gentleman's specific point about appearances, that process is well under way. Higher court advocates now appear before the Crown courts. We want more such advocates, and we have been waiting for the Access to Justice Act 1999 to come into force to ensure that that applies to barristers as well as to solicitors. There is a rigorous training programme, and the evidence is that higher court advocates are having a favourable impact—the judges and the Bar have welcomed them. I thank the

    567
    hon. Gentleman for his interest in the matter. He knows from his visit to his local branch that such advocates are playing a useful role in prosecutions.
    Mr. David Kidney: The Glidewell report reminds us of the poor quality of the information and communication technology available to the CPS. Is there a Government commitment to pay for the new ICT that the CPS genuinely needs?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend may know that the CPS was successful in obtaining a substantial modernisation grant from the Treasury: some £14 million. That will allow prosecutors to have personal computers, and we hope that that will be achieved in the near future. In the longer term, there is a public-private partnership initiative to provide IT links between courts and the police. I have seen pilots of such a scheme in Durham, and they have had a profound effect on the efficiency of the criminal justice system.
    Mr. John Burnett: This is the first opportunity that I have had since the retirement of the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), to pay tribute to his unfailing courtesy. He was always prepared to listen, and Liberal Democrat Members wish him well. It is to be deprecated that there is now no Attorney-General accountable and answerable to the House of Commons.
    I hope that the Solicitor-General will agree with me that, after a person has been convicted, the CPS should, whenever possible, secure the confiscation of the proceeds of crime and the payment of the huge costs incurred by the state. What are the Solicitor-General's Office and the Crown Prosecution Service doing to meet those two objectives?
    The Solicitor-General: I am sure that the former Attorney-General will be very pleased by the hon. Gentleman's comments, for which I thank him. The hon. Gentleman, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), accompanied me on a visit to a local CPS office during the past fortnight, and I am grateful to them for doing so. No doubt they were both impressed by the professionalism that they saw.
    The hon. Gentleman raised the question of costs at the time of the visit. The CPS, rightly, applies for costs; it will always apply for costs if it appears that the defendant has the money to pay. That is only right. It is also the case that courts will not often make orders for costs, because a defendant who is about to go inside will be impecunious. In any event, the CPS applies for costs automatically.
    I should add that, owing to the reaction of judges or magistrates, compensation sometimes takes priority over an application for costs by the CPS. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, however. The CPS also has a central confiscation unit, which is dedicated to seizing the proceeds of crime, and which is very successful.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Like the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), I regret the retirement of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—as do we all. I also join the Liberal Democrats' spokesman in regretting that this Question Time is now entitled "Oral Questions to
    568
    the Solicitor-General", rather than "Oral Questions to the Attorney-General". Is it not a sad comment on this so-called new Labour party that, with a parliamentary party consisting of more than 400 Members, the Government must replace the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon with an unelected politician whom we cannot interrogate here?
    What does the Solicitor-General know about the paragraphs in the Glidewell report on victim support, and what is he going to do about them?
    The Solicitor-General: I shall convey the thanks of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the former Attorney-General. I regret that I am a mere Solicitor-General, but I hope that I shall prove adequate to the task.
    I was rather taken by some remarks that the hon. and learned Gentleman penned in the current issue of The House Magazine. He wrote:
    "What do you do when your own mistakes grow in the light of your counterpart's successes? … You get ready to move out."
    I am not sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be doing that. I am certain that we shall face each other across the Dispatch Boxes in the coming year.
    We take the issue of victim support very seriously. It is at the top of the agenda. We have a long way to go, because the issue was not taken seriously under the previous Government. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, however, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary put it at the centre of recent legislation, and certain changes have been made in, for example, the way in which we treat victims of rape.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: What steps he is taking to promote equal opportunities in the Crown Prosecution Service. [93416]
    The Solicitor-General: I have regular discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief executive of the CPS. I am personally committed to ensuring equal opportunities in the CPS; it, too, is personally committed to driving forward the achievement of diversity and equality in the service.
    The CPS has published a new equality statement, and has established an equality committee to steer and promote the programme of change. An action plan on race will be drawn up by the end of the year. The selection and appointment of a new diversity manager in the senior civil service is in hand, and the post is currently being filled on a temporary basis by Ms Baljit Ubhey, a lawyer in the CPS. Her team is focusing on a number of priorities, such as improving race equality.
    Mr. Dismore: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his answer, but may I give an illustration of the continuing problem of racism in the CPS by referring to the case of a constituent of mine, senior Crown prosecutor Maria Bamieh, who has just succeeded in an employment tribunal case relating to unlawful racial discrimination and victimisation? Even during her case—despite her having passed an examination by a panel, organised externally,

    569
    in relation to promotion to a post five grades higher than her current post—she was told by the DPP:
    "If you now obtained a promotion, you would be seen as a troublemaker rewarded."
    That has been accepted in writing by the Treasury solicitor. That is not the way in which to treat people who, correctly, stand up for their rights. Will the Solicitor-General welcome the involvement of the Commission for Racial Equality, which is actively considering a formal investigation into the CPS?
    The Solicitor-General: As a result of the first Bamieh decision, the CPS rightly took several steps. For example, procedures for temporary promotion have been reviewed. In addition, the Bamieh case and several other incidents led to the important statements that I outlined in my first answer, such as the equality statement and the establishment of the equality committee, with a special sub-committee on race.
    My hon. Friend has referred to the second tribunal decision, which has just been given. In that case, discrimination was found, but it was not procedural: it was discrimination by a former CPS employee. I have looked at the tribunal's decision and I find it a bit difficult to understand what was done wrongly in terms of discrimination, as opposed to management.
    The issue is taken seriously. As I have said, I have personally taken a close interest in the matter. I have seen the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief executive. I have also seen the acting personnel heads and have had them report to me specifically on the measures that have been taken. We are doing a number of things. I mention, for example, the minority women network, which has been established in the CPS partly as a result of my commitment to the issue.
    The matter is serious. It will be unacceptable if there is any discrimination. It must be stamped out, and we are on the case.
    Mr. John Bercow: As well as promoting racial and sexual equality in the Crown Prosecution Service, and further to the recent and welcome speech by the Lord Chancellor about the importance of promoting merit in our society irrespective of background, what plans does the Solicitor-General have to ensure that, in addition to the products of the great public schools, there is adequate representation in the CPS of the magnificent products of the remaining 166 grammar schools?
    The Solicitor-General: The CPS advertises widely for positions. For example, it advertises in The Voice to attract applicants from ethnic minority communities. It will accept applications from everyone and anyone if they meet the standards.
    The statutory code for crown prosecutors is absolutely clear: decisions have to be made in a non-discriminatory way and on the basis of the evidence and public interest.

    Persistent Young Offenders
    Shona McIsaac: What impact the Government's policy on the speedy processing of persistent young offenders will have on the ability of the police to offer alternatives to prosecution. [93417]
    The Solicitor-General: The principal aim of the youth justice system, enshrined in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, is to prevent offending by children and young people. The speed with which young offenders are dealt with is an important factor, but the Government also recognise that, for some offenders, diversion from the criminal justice system is an effective means of tackling youth crime.
    Shona McIsaac: What is the CPS doing in Humberside to work with other agencies in my area to reduce unacceptable delays in the youth justice system?
    The Solicitor-General: As with all parts of the CPS, there is now joined-up government. The CPS works with the courts and police. I understand that, in Humberside recently, a conference was specifically devoted to bringing the different agencies together to deal with problems such as youth justice. In the next couple of months, I will visit my hon. Friend's area. I invite her to come with me to raise any concern that she has on the issue.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Solicitor-General talks about speeding up youth justice and the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) talks about unacceptable delays in youth justice, but I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he fought the last election on
    "an early election pledge:—fast track punishment for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing".
    He may conveniently have forgotten that, now that he is a Minister. Perhaps he could tell us when that will happen; it has not happened early. Labour has now been in government for 18 months. [Interruption.]
    The Solicitor-General: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is able to calculate delays in youth justice better than he is able to count months. Nevertheless, the Government are reducing the time required by the youth justice system. When we were elected, it took more than four and a half months to bring a persistent youth offender before the courts. That time has been reduced substantially—in some areas, it is already below the 71 days that we pledged. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything necessary to fulfil that pledge, and we shall do so.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We now return to Agriculture questions.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Beef Imports
    Mr. Martyn Jones: What progress is being made on the resumption of British beef exports. [93395]
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What estimate his Department has made of the amount of beef exported since 1 August. [93399]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): As well as being a clear breach of European Union law, the French import ban has hindered the resumption of our beef exports. I and other Ministers have been in regular contact with our French counterparts and the Commission to let them know how seriously we take the matter. I spoke again to Commissioner Byrne only this morning.
    The European Union scientific experts meet on 28 October to consider France's evidence for its continued import ban. In the interests of transparency, I am content that the Commission should ask its experts whether any of the points raised by the French scientists casts doubt on the EU decision on the date-based export scheme. I have looked at all the evidence submitted by France, and it contains nothing that was not already known. I therefore expect the Commission scientists to dismiss the French evidence.
    If the scientists find no new concerns that cast doubt on the date-based export scheme decision, the Government have made it known that we expect the French to lift their ban immediately. The Prime Minister made that clear to the French Prime Minister when they met last week. If the French do not lift their ban, Commission President Prodi has assured the Government that the Commission will take swift legal action.
    The situation in Germany is different. The German Government are waiting to see what the Commission scientists conclude, and have said that if no problems are raised they intend to lift their ban. The French have given no such undertaking.
    The first consignment of date-based export scheme beef was exported on 24 August. Since then, and despite the continued French and German import bans, several consignments have been exported from St. Merryn Meats Group's Probus slaughterhouse and, since 27 September, from Bryson Meats Plant at Strathaven, Lanarkshire. In view of the limited number of companies authorised to produce British beef for export so far, I cannot divulge the amount as that is commercially confidential information.
    Mr. Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on their success in getting the worldwide ban on British beef lifted—which has, I am sure, delighted my farmers. Does he agree, however, that the best way forward with the French problem is to get the Commission to use all the powers of law against the French so that they follow the law? Would not that be far more effective than taking an unannounced stroll down the Champs Elysées with some bizarrely worded banners?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am being very careful about where I take advice from. The decision to lift the worldwide ban on the export of British beef has been taken by the European Union. It is for the Commission to ensure that all members of the European Union implement that decision.
    Mr. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that both France and Germany are agreeing to the transit of British beef through their countries, but that that, of course, is not an acceptable situation? Does he expect the Commission's scientists to take the decision on 28 October? Will he also make it absolutely clear that the Government are taking all necessary action—by using the Commission's procedures
    572
    and, if necessary, the law—to ensure that British beef, which is safe, may be exported to and consumed in France?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the transport point. However, the position differs between the French Government and the German Government—the latter willingly lifted their prohibition on the transportation of British beef through Germany as soon as they could. Because of their co-decision arrangements, there has been a delay in reshaping their domestic legislation enforcing the ban, and they want to see the outcome of the Scientific Committee on 28 October. I have no quarrel with that. The position in France is different, and I have a considerable quarrel with that position.
    Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Minister understand that if our relationship with our European partners is as close, comfortable, harmonious and co-operative as the Prime Minister regularly claims from the Dispatch Box, the Government should have seen the French legal ban coming months ago and should have taken steps to prepare for it, particularly by lifting the ban on beef on the bone in this country? Although that excuse that we have handed the French is scientifically unjustifiable, it is politically gold-plated, and realpolitik determines that we must lift our ban on beef on the bone before we can realistically expect the French to lift theirs.
    Mr. Brown: The date-based export scheme is for deboned beef. The beef on the bone ban in this country, which is at the extreme end of the precautionary measures that we have in place, has nothing to do with the date-based export scheme for deboned beef. As for the suggestion that we should somehow have foreseen the French actions, it genuinely did not occur to me that, having made an international agreement in the European Union, the French would not implement it. Hindsight is a marvellous thing, but not a single Conservative Member of Parliament on the Front Bench or the Back Benches or anyone from the industry or anywhere else in the United Kingdom warned the Government that this might happen. It is all very well to say that it should have been foreseen, but, if it was that easy to foresee, why did the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who speaks for the Opposition, not constantly raise the possibility of the French not implementing an agreement that they had made?
    Mr. Michael Jack: The Budgen supermarket chain today took action to remove certain items of French produce from its shelves as a way of showing support for public concern about the issue and the fact that no practical action has been taken to support farmers desperate for the resumption of exports of beef. Will the Ministry be doing anything to encourage others in the commercial sector to give similar consideration to gestures of support and solidarity to farmers at this difficult time?
    Mr. Brown: I understand the strength of feeling that underpins the decision that Budgen has made on, I believe, apples and pears. It is selling British produce and not purchasing any more from France. There is a great deal of strong feeling in this country about the French

    573
    behaviour, and some people take the view that while the French are imposing a ban on our beef we should not buy their products.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is only because of the European Union that we can force France to reopen its markets to our beef, that non-EU countries banned British beef first and continue to do so, and that if we had the kind of pick-and-mix Europe now advocated by the Tories we would be powerless to force anybody to accept our beef?
    Mr. Brown: The Commission and the European Union are standing in our corner on the issue, as are 14 of the 15 member states. That is an important point, because we were not in that position under the previous Government.
    Mr. David Heath: Is there not a suspicion that the purpose of the French action was never to impose a sustainable ban, but to create an unfavourable commercial climate in France—an invitation that was readily accepted by the French media? Does that not reinforce the need for a lifting of the beef on the bone ban and a strong marketing campaign for British beef? It is never acceptable for France to abuse its position as the first landfall for British produce on continental Europe by preventing the passage of British produce to third countries. Will the Minister ask for assurances from the French Government that that will never happen again?
    Mr. Brown: I have done more than that. I have met the French Agriculture Minister and said that it should not have happened in the first place. I asked him to lift the ban on the transportation of our produce through France well before the French parliamentary procedures would have been completed on lifting their domestic ban on offering the product for sale. The French have been reluctant to do what they have now done. The situation is unacceptable, and their action is in breach of the treaty because it is a constraint on the free movement of goods and services in the European Union. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to relate the beef on the bone ban in this country to the date-based export scheme because that scheme is for deboned meat.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I tell my right hon. Friend what sticks in my throat? It is to witness Tory Members of Parliament attacking a Labour Government for our attempts to resolve the crisis in beef which resulted from BSE—something that the Tories themselves created, through their negligence in the 1980s and 1990s. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on behalf of the British farming industry on his valiant attempt to resolve the crisis?
    Mr. Brown: Under the Conservative Government's stewardship of this issue, Britain was isolated within Europe. Under our stewardship, France is isolated within Europe. That is the difference.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: As beef farmers in these islands went to such lengths following the BSE constraints from Europe, does it not now behove France to obey the rules? Will my right hon. Friend press for the European Commission to take the case to the European
    574
    courts as soon as possible? The European Court of Justice should determine this matter so that there is a ruling preventing other countries from being tempted to act in such a way in future.
    Mr. Brown: This is an important matter for the EU and the Commission, and Commissioner Prodi has given our Prime Minister the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking. The French behaviour is indefensible, and its implications go far wider than the narrow question of implementing the date-based export scheme. The right hon. Gentleman is right to make that point.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not think that the French will listen to my words, but we buy a lot of electricity from France, and there is a line that brings it across. We could provide electricity in this country in many ways, including by not shutting coal mines. Why not tell the French that today? Will my right hon. Friend tell his colleagues that the swiftest way of dealing with this matter is to tell the French that we will not buy any more of their nuclear-produced electricity?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is drawing me slightly wide of my ministerial responsibilities, but he is right to assert that there is a great deal of anger in this country about what the French have done in breaking an agreement that was made in good faith at an international level within the EU. People are looking at ways of expressing their displeasure, and I for one am not surprised at that.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: On 14 July, when the Minister announced to the House, for the fourth time, the lifting of the export ban, it did not occur to me, or to anyone on this side of the House, that he had not taken the trouble to check with the French, who he should have been aware—because they abstained at the November 1998 Agriculture Council when the matter was discussed—had some doubts. It did not occur to me to think that the Minister had not picked up the phone to check with his opposite number before making a statement—on the record, in this House and for the fourth time—that the beef export ban was being lifted. That was an act of gross incompetence, which was compounded this morning by his attempt to blame us for not asking him to do what any remotely competent Minister—even a Minister in this Government—would have done without any reminder from the Opposition.
    Does not the Minister recognise that every day that Labour maintains the absurd and unjustified ban on beef on the bone—in defiance of the advice that Labour has received from the chief medical officer that it is safe for consumers—makes it harder for the process of rebuilding confidence in British beef to begin? Does he believe that leaving all this to some legal action by the European Commission—a process that may take months, if not years—is in any way an adequate response to the crisis now overwhelming the British beef sector?
    Mr. Brown: I note that no practical alternative remedy is being offered by the hon. Gentleman—unless, of course, he is implying that we should return to the policies pursued by the previous Conservative Government, which left our country isolated in Europe and everyone else

    575
    ganging up against us. The position now is that the Commission is on our side, 13 of the 15 countries have implemented the decision and the 14th is implementing it. It is the French who are isolated within Europe.
    It is simply untrue that we did not check the French position. There were comprehensive discussions with the French before the decision was made at the November
    576
    Council of Ministers, and the French stated that their position was one of acquiescence and abstention. I—and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman—had no reason to believe that that would not endure. I should have thought that the whole House could make common cause on this issue, yet I get no support from those on the Conservative Front Bench at a time when British farmers are looking to us to unite and to act.

Business of the House
12.45 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 OCTOBER—Motion to provide for the carry-over of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
Motion to renew the sessional orders relating to Thursday sittings.
Motion relating to meetings of Standing Committees.
Motion relating to sittings in Westminster Hall.
Changes to Standing Orders consequential on devolution.
TUESDAY 26 OCTOBER—Opposition Day.
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "Police numbers, asylum seekers, immigration control and the Government's handling of revelations relating to cold war spies", followed by a debate entitled "The state of the national health service". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
WEDNESDAY 27 OCTOBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate on the Joint Committee report on parliamentary privilege on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 28 OCTOBER—Debate on agriculture on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 29 OCTOBER—Debate on the future of broadcasting on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 1 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Bill [Lords].
The House will appreciate that, as is usual at this time of year, I am not able to give a full two weeks' notice of business, because we are dependent on decisions being made in the House of Lords. The House will also want to know that on Wednesday 27 October there will be a debate on taxation of energy products in European Standing Committee B and a debate on harmonisation of copyright and electronic commerce in the single market in European Standing Committee C.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 27 October 1999:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union documents: 5562/98 and 8723/99, Harmonisation of copyright; 5123/99 and 10644/99, Electronic commerce in the single market; unnumbered EM, dated 18 October 1999—Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC155-xviii (1997–98). Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC34-ix and HC 34-xxviii (1998–99).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: 6793/97, Taxation of energy products—Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 155-xi and HC 155-ii (1997–98).]
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for details of next week's business. Of course we understand the difficulty about the week after,
578
but I assume that we will be dealing with Lords amendments to Government Bills. Can the Leader of the House shed any light on the likely date of prorogation?
I welcome the proposed full day's debate on privilege, for which we have been pressing for some time, and the one on broadcasting, following the Davies report which was published just after the House rose.
The report of the royal commission on long-term care was published in the spring, and the Government have still not found time for a debate on it, despite the reduced pressure on time and the importance of the issue. I am sure that the Leader of the House understands the concern felt both inside and outside the House. I must press her for an undertaking to provide time for such a debate in the very near future.
I welcome the proposed debate on agriculture on Thursday. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be taking part and that it will be in order to raise the issues in the Cabinet Office report proposing VAT on new building, new taxes on tourism and the relaxation of the planning regime, all of which have caused widespread alarm? Will she reflect on what the Government have just done in respect of Agriculture questions—namely, grouping two questions and taking them at 12.30 pm? Would not it have been better to make a proper statement with due notice and the normal courtesies?
It has been usual to have a two-day debate on defence matters when the House returns in the autumn. What has happened to that debate and to the usual defence White Paper, which has not been published since 1996? The Leader of the House will understand the concerns about overstretch, the Territorial Army and the viability of the strategic defence review. I hope that she can confirm that the debate will indeed take place.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that, for the same reason that I am unable to give further details of future business, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any indication of the likely date of prorogation. I am grateful to him for his welcome for the debates on broadcasting and on the privilege report. I accept that he has been pressing for a debate on long-term care, and I can indeed give him an undertaking that we will find an appropriate time for such a debate in the new Session.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would take part in the agriculture debate. It is the Minister who wishes to hold that debate in order to give the House an opportunity to discuss agricultural matters. Whether it will be in order to raise a range of issues alluded to in The Times is another matter entirely—and not, I am happy to say, a matter for me. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the debate will take place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman asked also about the grouping of questions. I accept that the House may occasionally prefer a statement, but we are anxious not to take up the time of the House with too many statements. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took the view that it might be more convenient for the House to handle the matter in this way. However, if Opposition Members do not agree, we will bear that in mind for the future.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been no defence White Paper since 1996. However, I remind him that we held the strategic defence review. A White Paper

579
will come before the House and will be debated at the proper time. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that events in Kosovo have necessitated a fresh look at, and some revision of, defence estimates. That is why the paper has been delayed—there is no sinister motive.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Albeit that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and I will share an Adjournment debate on Monday 1 November about the reconstruction of Yugoslavia, will the Leader of the House expand upon her reply to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about defence estimates? Although time is to be found for a debate on the White Paper, that may occur a long way into the future and there are urgent matters to consider in relation not only to Yugoslavia but to the continuing war against Iraq. We should also have an opportunity to discuss the reports of the Bishop of Coventry and his ecclesiastical colleagues who have returned from that country where human disaster is rife.
Mrs. Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I am afraid that there is a limit to the extent to which I can help him. I have said that the White Paper will be handled in the traditional manner, and my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be discourteous to the House if the Defence Committee were not given the chance to examine the White Paper and put its views before the House. However, we shall obviously do our best to bring the matter before the House as soon as we can reasonably do so.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I endorse the concerns expressed about the rather unusual way in which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has dealt with the issue of beef exports. It would have been much tidier, and the House would have appreciated it, if we had received notice that the issue was to be the subject of a proper ministerial statement. We could then have dealt with the matter more effectively.
We understand that the Home Secretary will tomorrow publish the Freedom of Information Bill, which has been watered down. This is a controversial matter in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have considerable interest. It was also the subject of two important reports: the first from the Select Committee on Public Administration in July and the second from the other place. This is a parliamentary matter, yet the Government's Bill is to be published on a non-sitting day. That is surely unacceptable. There should be a proper statement and all hon. Members should have the opportunity to learn what is going on. May we at least have a guarantee that the Second Reading of this extremely important Bill will occur very early in the new Session and that, in the meantime, there will be some statement to the House about the Government's precise intentions?
Mrs. Beckett: The handling of Agriculture questions was explained on the Annunciator. However, I accept that hon. Members may have been unhappy with that procedure and, as I have said already to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), I will take that on board.
580
As to the Freedom of Information Bill, I say with respect to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that anyone would think that this matter had not been in the public domain and not been discussed and scrutinised thoroughly. After all, we had a special opportunity, which I think we all welcomed, to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Government are taking account of and replying to some of the comments made during that process. Nevertheless, the Bill will put freedom of information on a statutory basis for the first time.
It is rather a pity that so much comment has concentrated on allegations that the Bill has been in some way watered down, not on the greater access that is being provided, particularly on matters of keen public interest. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's wish for an early Second Reading, but I cannot pre-empt a business statement quite so far ahead.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the objective 2 funding proposals from the Department of Trade and Industry to the European Union? The Leader of the House will know that in the east midlands and Derbyshire the figures are quite good. Nevertheless, in north-east Derbyshire the figure is 70 per cent. down in coalfield community areas, so something has gone wrong there. May we have a debate in which the details are examined to see whether there should be some adjustment in the submissions?
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend will know, the Government got a good settlement on objective 2 and, indeed, on objective 1. As another Derbyshire Member of Parliament, I regret the concern expressed in his part of the county although, as he will know, most coalfield communities have welcomed the settlement. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter, but two weeks today there will be a Department of Trade and Industry Question Time when there may well be an opportunity to raise it.
Mr. Peter Brooke: To facilitate the next fortnight's business, could the Leader of the House put a bomb under the Cabinet Office to renew the publication of ministerial duties as an index of joined-up government, as throughout the recess we have had to operate with a pre-July document, which is a classic example of Harold Macmillan's remark about looking up this year's trains in last year's "Bradshaw"?
Mrs. Beckett: Indeed, I entirely take the right hon. Gentleman's point. I cannot undertake to put a bomb under the Cabinet Office, but I certainly undertake to draw his remarks to its attention.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a warm welcome for the Prime Minister's undertaking in the House yesterday that there will be a full consultation process before any decision is taken on whether to bring forward legislative proposals on air traffic control in the next Session of Parliament? She will be aware that when the announcement was made on the 27 July there was deep anxiety on the Government Benches. Will she arrange for a debate on this subject before the House prorogues?
Mrs. Beckett: I undertake to bear in mind my right hon. Friend's request, but I cannot give him the

581
undertaking that he seeks. He will know that the Government are concerned to get the right outcome for the air traffic control services and that safety is our priority. It is also important to get much-needed investment into those rather neglected services. However, I shall certainly bear his request in mind.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House spoke about pressure on the business of the House. Nevertheless, may I press for a debate in the very near future on the Patten commission report? There is great concern in Northern Ireland and throughout the kingdom as a whole about some of its proposals. Surely before the consultation period ends, this House should have an opportunity to express its opinion.
Mrs. Beckett: Again, I undertake to bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. As he said, the consultation process is under way and, I believe, runs until the end of November. The Government will respond as quickly as possible after that. I cannot give him an undertaking now about the timing of the handling of these matters, but I shall bear his observations in mind.
Mr. John McDonnell: Given the breadth of some of the titles of the debates over the next few weeks, could my right hon. Friend use her ingenuity to stretch one of those debates to include industrial relations, particularly the case of the Lufthansa Skychef workers? For 12 months they have been locked out, with management refusing to negotiate. I believe that they deserve the support of the whole House for the way in which they have conducted their dispute and sought to redress the wrong of their instantaneous dismissal 12 months ago simply because they took industrial action for 24 hours.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned for a long period about this matter, and the whole House will respect his concern for his constituents. I freely admit that despite the portmanteau nature of our business, particularly the Opposition day debates, how he could raise that matter next week does not immediately spring to mind. However, knowing his ingenuity, I am confident that he will find some way of raising the matter in the near future.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In supporting the call by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for an early debate on long-term care for the elderly, I thank the Leader of the House for indicating firmly that there will be a debate—early, I hope—in the new Session. Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the Government make no decisions about the White Paper—apparently, they have made decisions, but I hope that they will not be final—before the House has had the opportunity to debate those matters, which are of great importance to a large, vulnerable group of people?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I said that we would have a debate in the new Session at the appropriate time. I take on board his remarks about decisions. What he seeks would be difficult to achieve because the Government obviously want to form views and, if I understood him correctly, he is asking for a
582
debate not only before the Government have made a response but before the White Paper is published. I shall certainly draw his views to the attention of my colleagues in the relevant Department.
Angela Smith: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to next week's exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall on behalf of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children's Full Stop campaign, which wants to end the abuse of children? Would this not be a timely opportunity for a debate on that issue, given the widespread support for the campaign by hon. Members on all sides of the House?
Mrs. Beckett: I am pleased to learn from my hon. Friend that there is such an exhibition because the campaign is indeed fully supported on all sides of the House, as it should be. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future, but I am confident that many hon. Members will be pleased that she has drawn the exhibition to their attention.
Mrs. Ray Michie: Will the Leader of the House invite an appropriate Minister to make a statement about the future of the Campbeltown-Ballycastle ferry service, which is under threat and likely to be withdrawn? That will have severe consequences for County Antrim and for Kintyre in my constituency. I assure her that it is a matter for Westminster rather than a devolved matter because it concerns ferry services between Scotland and another part of the United Kingdom. We desperately need to know what is happening.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find an opportunity for a statement on that matter, but I undertake to draw the hon. Lady's concerns to the attention of my ministerial colleague in the relevant Department.
Mr. Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend is probably aware that next Monday is United Nations day. Could we therefore have an early debate on UN peacekeeping operations and this country's contribution to them? Could we discuss in that debate the fact that a UN official was gunned down in the street in Kosovo, purportedly by the Kosovo Liberation Army? Will the Government make a statement about what is being done to bring the perpetrators of that crime to justice?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will certainly be aware that Foreign Office questions will take place on 2 November, when there may be an opportunity to raise those matters. In the not too distant future there will be debates on foreign affairs and defence following the Queen's Speech, and I have no doubt that if my hon. Friend has not managed to raise those matters with the relevant Ministers between now and then, he will do so on one of those occasions.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Could the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to come to the House to explain why the Department takes so long to determine planning applications following public inquiries? One delay has cost up to 2,000 jobs in my

583
constituency. A plan to create a science park, which was the subject of a one-day public inquiry in January and to which there were no objections, has not yet been determined by Ministers, with the consequence that the scheme's backers have now walked away and the scheme is effectively dead.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, know that Ministers in the DETR are concerned about the time that such applications take and are reviewing the process to speed it up. I know that they will be sorry to learn of the difficulties to which he referred, and I shall certainly draw his remarks to their attention.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: For half its short history, Pakistan has been ruled by the military—and they are back again. Five Labour Members travelled under their own steam to Pakistan, and we narrowly missed being caught up in the military coup, but we did meet several Ministers, who are now under house arrest. Whether the military coup proves to be benign or otherwise, is it not absolutely deplorable that a democratically elected Government should have been set aside by the military, and is not there a powerful case for an early debate on that issue, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), has agreed to meet the five of us?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling the House that the Minister has agreed to meet him and his hon. Friends; it is obviously right for him to do so.
My hon. Friend knows that a decision has been taken to suspend Pakistan from the council of the Commonwealth, and I suspect that his concern will be shared on both sides of the House. It is most unfortunate that, yet again, democratic government has been suspended in Pakistan. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on it in the near future although, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) earlier, there will be Foreign Office questions on 2 November. The position may be a little clearer by then.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Has the Leader of the House any news of the long-delayed announcement on the future of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency? She will appreciate that the delay is causing great uncertainty among hundreds of civil servants at Fort Halstead in my constituency. Does she recall that this was a privatisation that the previous Conservative Government ruled out?
Mrs. Beckett: I did not recall that, nor am I aware whether that statement is accurate, but I can well understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses. If uncertainty is being caused among staff, I shall draw that to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the sale of Forestry Commission land? I draw her attention to early-day motion 920, in my name and that of other hon. Members.
584
[That this House deplores the decision by Forest Enterprise Wales to instruct agents to sell the freehold of Chepstow Park Wood in the Wye Valley area of outstanding natural beauty for potential development as a holiday village operation; notes with concern the manner in which this process has been conducted, the failure to consult or even notify local authorities or other public bodies, the failure to advertise the sale locally, the brief time period for the receipt of offers (noon 22nd October) and the sealed bid system of sale; calls on Forest Enterprise Wales to suspend the sale of Chepstow Park Wood until this matter has been subject to a process of public consultation that can determine what is in the public interest; and calls on the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the National Assembly for Wales to intervene.]
There is very deep concern in my constituency that the sale of Chepstow Park wood has been administered in a very underhand and secretive way, not up to the standards that we would expect of a public body. May we hold a debate about the way in which public bodies such as the Forestry Commission attempt to sell their land?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that the Government imposed a moratorium on such sales, which were of course handled quite differently under our predecessors. I appreciate that he is seeking a debate on the overall policy of the Forestry Commission, not on this specific matter, which would probably be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate, as a special item, in the near future. However, I have announced a debate on agriculture, and my hon. Friend may find that the occupant of the Chair allows him to raise the matter in that debate.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Can the right hon. Lady arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on Monday to clarify the announcement that he made earlier this week? Notwithstanding the promises that he made in that announcement, the British Medical Association has said that there will not be a single additional specialist in the health service as a consequence of it. It would, I think, help the House in its short debate on Tuesday evening if those matters were made clear beforehand so that we could have an informed debate.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find time for an extra debate when, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have so recently had Health questions and focused on those matters. I am afraid that I am not familiar with the BMA's most recent remarks, at least as the hon. Gentleman has reported them, but he will be aware that the Government are making substantial extra investment in the health service, including an extra investment in staff, to make up for the neglect that we inherited from the Government whom he supported.
Mr. David Borrow: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and I attended yesterday's launch of the Leyland Partnership. That partnership is using the new deal to create 300 jobs for the long-term unemployed in my constituency. As the unemployment rate in South Ribble has already dropped below 2 per cent., with the creation

585
of those 300 jobs targeted at the long-term unemployed, there will be almost full employment in South Ribble by the time of the general election. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate, in the near future, to hold a debate on the success of the Government's job-creation policies?
Mrs. Beckett: I am delighted to hear of the success to which my hon. Friend draws attention. I am sure that his constituents will be appropriately impressed. Even though such a debate would be to discuss the success of the Government's employment and economic policies, I cannot undertake to find time for it.
Mr. John Hayes: Notwithstanding the debate on agriculture which the Leader of the House has announced, will she make time for a specific debate on planning and development in rural Britain? In the light of the reported Cabinet Office recommendation that would allow for the concreting over of prime agricultural land, and the amended planning guidelines, which will lead to an increase in car-parking charges and restrict car-parking places in market towns, to the detriment of rural car users and rural traders, the right hon. Lady will understand that such a debate would give the Government the opportunity to tell rural Britain what they have got against the countryside. It would also provide an opportunity for this side of the House—when I say this side of the House, I do not include those who sit on the Liberal Benches—to illustrate once again that we are the only champions here of rural Britain.
Mrs. Beckett: As I believe I said to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire at the outset, I am aware of reports that have appeared in the press. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that no publication has taken place, and the Government are not putting forward any proposals at this stage on which to focus such a debate. In due course there will be the publication of a rural White Paper and the publication of any analysis that has been undertaken by the performance innovation unit, once that work has been completed, to provide fresh thinking for the Government. I fear that I cannot undertake now to find time for the extra debate for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Leader of the House try to arrange for the Prime Minister to explain to the House next week the action that he has taken about a serious matter, which is the pressure being
586
placed on the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), the former Paymaster General, by members of the Prime Minister's Office, not to refer in his memoirs to the improper soliciting before the general election of £250,000 from him for the funding of the Prime Minister's private office? Is not the seriousness of these allegations added to by the fact that the person who made that solicitation is now the Prime Minister's press secretary?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of any such concrete information. Consequently, there is no point in any suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should refer in the House to reports that appear in the press, some of which sound increasingly far fetched.
Mr. Robert Syms: Will the Leader of the House put pressure on the Paymaster General to explain to the House the shocking revelation that 4 million people have been hit by a stealth tax with their national insurance contributions being increased? I did not see a great deal of evidence about this in the Red Book. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to explore the matter further, along with any other surprises and stealth taxes in the last Budget.
Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware that it is the instruction, perhaps, and certainly the preference, of Opposition Members to make constant references to stealth taxes. However, there seems to be a flaw in the argument on this occasion. First, something can hardly be described as being handled by stealth when the relevant information was available in a parliamentary answer of 15 March. I know that not everybody reads Hansard with great assiduity, but this cannot really be described as keeping something secret.
Secondly, not only is it not stealthy but it is not a tax. The Government's overall package of proposals, including the abolition of the entry fee on national insurance contributions, the introduction of the 10 per cent. starting rate of tax and the cutting of the basic rate, more than compensate for any rise in the upper earnings level. The hon. Gentleman's question was well phrased but, I fear, ill targeted.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now take the second statement.

Mitrokhin Archive
1.14 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Mitrokhin archive and other related issues.
On 13 September, when the House was in recess, I issued a written statement concerning the activities of the KGB and its agents which had been brought to light by the Mitrokhin archive. A copy of the statement has been placed in the Library of the House.
The archive material relates to activities spanning several decades, from 1917 up to the mid-1980s. A book by Mr. Mitrokhin and Professor Christopher Andrew drawing on the archive was published in September, prompting extensive media coverage. That in turn raised questions about how the archive had been used.
In the light of those questions, I announced on 13 September, with the agreement of the Prime Minister, that the Intelligence and Security Committee had been asked to conduct an inquiry into the policies and procedures used by the intelligence and security agencies in the handling of the Mitrokhin material. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the chairman of the committee, and his colleagues for taking on that important work.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I will carefully consider the committee's report and ensure that as much as possible of it is made public. It may, however, be helpful to the House if I set out today some of the essential background.
Vasili Mitrokhin worked for almost 30 years in the foreign intelligence archive of the KGB where, at great risk to himself, he made notes of the contents of the highly secret files that passed through his hands. Over many years, he thus assembled a huge collection of material, some in manuscript and some typed.
In 1992, after Mr. Mitrokhin had approached the UK for help, our Secret Intelligence Service made arrangements to bring Mr. Mitrokhin and his family to this country, together with his archive. As there were no original KGB documents or copies of original documents, the material itself was of no direct evidential value, but it was of huge value for intelligence and investigative purposes.
Thousands of leads from Mr. Mitrokhin's material have been followed up worldwide. As a result, our intelligence and security agencies, in co-operation with allied Governments, have been able to put a stop to many security threats. Many unsolved investigations have been closed; many earlier suspicions confirmed; and some names and reputations have been cleared. Our intelligence and security agencies have assessed the value of Mr. Mitrokhin's material worldwide as immense.
Much of the media coverage in September concerned Mrs. Melita Norwood. My statement of 13 September summarised the history of the Security Service's knowledge of Mrs. Norwood spanning half a century, and the decisions that were taken in her case. The handling of her case will plainly form part of the inquiry that is now under way by the Intelligence and Security Committee. For the convenience of the House, however, I shall briefly summarise what I spelled out in September.
588
Mrs. Norwood was first vetted for access to Government secrets in 1945, when she worked for the British Non-Ferrous Metal Research Association. Although there were concerns about her in 1945, there were insufficient grounds at that time to warrant withholding her clearance for access to sensitive documents. Further investigation, however, led to her vetting clearance being revoked in 1951. She had not in practice had authorised access to Government secrets after 1949.
An extensive investigation of Mrs. Norwood in the 1960s led the Security Service to conclude that Mrs. Norwood had been a spy in the 1940s, but the service also concluded that there was no usable evidence that could be used in court to support a prosecution against her.
When Mr. Mitrokhin's notes of the KGB archive material became available to British intelligence in 1992, those notes further confirmed the suspicions already held about Mrs. Norwood's role as a spy. However, the Security Service again concluded that that material did not on its own constitute evidence that could be put to a UK court. Moreover, a judgment was made at that time that the material needed to remain secret for a period. There were many leads to more recent espionage to be followed up, particularly in the countries of a number of our close allies, which could have been jeopardised by premature disclosure. In summary, the key decisions in the Norwood case were made in 1945, 1951, 1966 and 1992–93.
The House will be aware that questions on prosecutions for espionage, as for any other alleged crime, are a matter for the prosecuting authorities and the Law Officers, not for the Home Secretary of the day.
As I made clear in my 13 September statement, the papers relating to Mrs. Norwood were submitted to the Attorney-General in the spring of this year, but he concluded that 1992 had represented the last opportunity for the authorities to proceed by way of a criminal investigation and possible prosecution, and that there was therefore no decision for him to take. I can, however, tell the House that, in the light of Mrs. Norwood's recent statements, the papers in this case are currently being studied again by the prosecuting authorities. I understand that four other cases, covering the Mitrokhin archive and related matters, are also being considered.
Let me now turn to the decision which was taken to make publicly available information from the Mitrokhin archive. Although the material has been in the custody of the Secret Intelligence Service since 1992, it was and remains the property of Mr. Mitrokhin. It was always his intention that the material should be published, but Mr. Mitrokhin agreed to co-operate with the major operation by our security and intelligence agencies, which I have outlined, to use the information first for investigative purposes.
I understand that, by 1996, investigations in the UK and elsewhere had reached a stage where it was possible to agree to start the process to meet Mr. Mitrokhin's wish to see the story revealed. Given the nature of his notes, it was concluded that this could best be done through an historical analysis.
In March 1996, the right hon. Sir Malcolm Rifkind QC, the then Foreign Secretary, agreed in principle that Professor Christopher Andrew of Cambridge university

589
should be invited to co-author, with Mr. Mitrokhin, an historical study of those aspects of the archive which cover KGB activities against the principal western states. I understand that Sir Malcolm agreed with the recommendation that an interdepartmental committee of officials should consider whether any of the information in the material needed to be withheld from publication. I also understand that Sir Malcolm imposed a condition that any allegations of criminal behaviour against individual persons should not be made public unless those individuals agreed or they had been prosecuted and convicted.
The Government were informed in late 1997 of the plan to publish the archive, and concurred. In 1998, the Secret Intelligence Service entered into confidentiality agreements with Professor Andrew and the publishers, Penguin. These were intended to ensure that still sensitive material was not published.
In the interests of national security, the Security Service has, over the years, carried out many investigations into allegations of espionage, based on intelligence which it has acquired. But allegations, or even good intelligence, are not proof of criminal activity. They are instead the basis for investigative work designed to prevent further damage to the interests of the country. They may in turn help in the end unearth evidence solid enough to put before a court.
The publication of news articles and television programmes about the Mitrokhin archive and the East German Stasi records has led some people to ask that the Government should publish a list of all those against whom allegations of spying and complicity with the KGB and the Stasi have been made. There are, however, compelling arguments against doing so which have been accepted by successive Governments.
First, it would be wrong to compromise the effectiveness of the intelligence and security agencies by revealing the cases on which they may be working. Above and beyond that consideration, it is a long-established rule of law that people are innocent until convicted in a court of law. We must not slide into trial by denunciation.
The Mitrokhin archive has raised some important issues which we are pursuing through the inquiry by the ISC, and we wait for its report to see what lessons can be learned. That must not obscure the important value of Mr. Mitrokhin's work to this country and to our allies. His archive is a unique testimony to a brave individual who worked alone against tyranny. It is also a reminder, if one were needed, of the continuing value of the work of our security and intelligence services.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank the Home Secretary, both for that statement and for his customary courtesy in letting me have an early sight of his remarks. However, I hope that he will kick the habit of revealing the full facts to the House only when the press and media have obliged him to do so.
Did the Home Secretary first know of the allegations against Melita Norwood in December 1998? If so, was he made aware of them in the context of likely publication? If he knew that those facts were to become public, why did he then not decide to inform Parliament rather than waiting for the press to do so? At what stage did he first inform the Prime Minister of what he knew about Melita Norwood? When he was told about Melita Norwood in
590
December 1998, did he then ask whether there would be other revelations? If not, why not? If he did, was any indication given to him then of revelations against any other persons, including Dr. Pearson and Mr. Symonds?
The Home Secretary referred to the condition imposed by Sir Malcolm Rifkind. He said that Sir Malcolm
"imposed a condition that any allegations of criminal behaviour against individual persons should not be made public unless those individuals agreed"—
which I would have thought was rather unlikely—
"or they had been prosecuted and convicted."
In view of that condition, how does that square with what happened? Without going into details, can he tell me as a matter of fact whether the civil servant codenamed Hunt has been identified and, if so, what action is being considered, has been considered or has been ruled out?
We welcome the decision for the prosecuting authorities to look again at the case for prosecution in the light of the recent admissions, but can the Home Secretary explain how the decision not to prosecute, so far, squares with the decision to prosecute Shayler? What is the comparable basis? Can he confirm that age was not a factor in deciding whether to prosecute Mrs. Norwood, as that would stack up rather oddly with his decisions in the case of General Pinochet? Can he also confirm that one of those being considered for prosecution is Dr. Pearson? Is he aware of the serious allegation made by Dr. Gosling that he was drugged and robbed in Warsaw in the late 1970s at an academic conference apparently as a direct result of the activities of Dr. Pearson? Those are extremely serious allegations and I should be grateful for the Home Secretary's observations on them.
Although we also welcome the reference to an inquiry into the activities of the security services, will the Home Secretary now acknowledge that there was one activity that it got absolutely right—the decision to put the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament under surveillance? Among the revelations there are established links between CND and the Stasi. In that context, given the links between CND and members of the Government, will he reassure the House that no currently serving Minister had any contact with any of the persons named in the Mitrokhin archive?
Mr. Straw: When this matter first became public, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), in a commentary in the newspapers, demanded that we publish all the names of any more traitors living, like this one, without being prosecuted. She then said that we should be told the reasons why they had not been brought to justice unless there were clear security reasons for not doing so. What the right hon. Lady was seeking was for us to adopt a practice that would be wholly improper and which successive Governments have refused to follow: the denunciation of people against whom allegations had been made, without evidence being put before a court of law, and for their conviction to follow.
All the key decisions concerning the prosecution of people in relation to material in the Mitrokhin archive—key decisions concerning whether Mrs. Norwood should be prosecuted—were made under the right hon. Lady's Administration, not under this one. I am not privy to the decisions and considerations that they made, except that Sir Malcolm Rifkind authorised me to disclose that, in

591
1996, he agreed with the recommendation that that material should be placed in the public domain by way of a book co-authored by Mr. Mitrokhin and Professor Christopher Andrew; that he agreed that an interdepartmental committee of officials should consider whether any of the material should be withheld from publication; and, above all, that he personally had imposed a condition that any allegations of criminal behaviour against individuals should not be made public unless those individuals agreed—I agree with the right hon. Lady that that is an unlikely prospect, but that was the condition that her right hon. and learned Friend imposed—or they had been prosecuted and convicted.
That is the appropriate way to proceed in this matter, as in any other. On individual questions about prosecution, I have already made clear what the right hon. Lady knows anyway: that decisions about the prosecution of any individual are not a matter for the Home Secretary of the day; they are a matter for the Law Officers and prosecuting authorities.
One important issue that arose in respect of the Mitrokhin case, particularly concerning Mrs. Norwood, was the fact that the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Norwood in 1992–93 was made within the Security Service, and the papers never went to the Law Officers. I believe that an important issue is raised there and I am certain that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater and his colleagues will want to follow that up in detail.
Mr. Hunt was identified by the Security Service. Investigations showed that he had no access to classified information and could not damage Britain's interest. If the right hon. Lady now asks me why he is not being considered for prosecution, the answer is simple: he is dead.
Mr. Tom King: May I say, on behalf of my committee, that we welcome the invitation from the Prime Minister to carry out this inquiry? It is no secret that the committee would have wanted to carry out the inquiry anyway, with or without the invitation, because of the security and intelligence implications.
This is, however, a new approach to the handling of a security inquiry of this kind, made possible by the existence of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The committee believes that it is appropriate for it to accept this direct request from the Government to conduct such an inquiry, but it would also be proper to make clear to the House and the Government, as I have already sought to do to the Home Secretary, the basis on which the committee feels able to conduct this inquiry.
We shall look for the fullest co-operation from the Government, Ministers, Departments, agencies, members of previous Governments and the predecessor officials. We shall look for prompt responses to the requests that we shall make. In particular, we shall require access to all relevant papers that the committee may need, recognising that, in respect of this inquiry, it will be particularly germane to see advice to Ministers if the committee is to be able to make objective judgments on this matter.
We take note of the announcement that the possibility of prosecuting Mrs. Norwood is being considered, as are four other cases. That was not known to the committee
592
when the original request was made. The committee has not had a chance to discuss that matter, and we shall need to consider its implications for our inquiry.
We welcome this invitation, and shall submit our report the Prime Minister. He will lay it before the House in the usual way, subject to any necessary deletions, after consultation, for national security reasons.
Mr. Straw: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Intelligence and Security Committee for agreeing to undertake this work. I appreciate that, if his committee had not been asked by me, with the Prime Minister's agreement, to undertake this inquiry, it would have properly decided of its own volition to do so. That is why the Intelligence and Security Committee was established. I welcome its work and the fact that it strengthens the role that Ministers exercise in holding the agencies properly to account.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he hopes that this and previous Administrations will co-operate fully with the work of the committee. I can give him that undertaking in respect of this Administration, but he will appreciate that undertakings from the previous Administration are a matter for the former Prime Minister, his right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are doing our best to ensure that there is a prompt response to the understandably long list of questions that the committee has already posed to my Department, the Foreign Office and the agencies.
The right hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his intention to raise the issue of access to all relevant papers. He will be aware that until now the usual arrangement for evidence to be given to his committee is by way of memorandum of evidence rather than by access to original papers. However, I take his point, particularly in relation to advice to Ministers. I am sympathetic to his view, and I am discussing the matter with my relevant right hon. Friends. I hope to provide a positive response to the committee as soon as possible.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. I also pay tribute to the security services and to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and his colleagues on the committee.
There is widespread revulsion about people in this country who spied either for the East German Stasi or for the Soviet Union's communists. However, I hope that the Home Secretary agrees with me that that does not mean that this country should have a policy of prosecuting all who spied, regardless of how long ago it happened, of the seriousness of what they did or of the public interest in whether a prosecution should go ahead. I shall therefore ask him not about individuals but about the more important issue of how decisions were made, as opposed to what those decisions were.
First, will the Home Secretary confirm that it is not right for decisions to prosecute to be taken either by officers of the security services or by Ministers of the day alone, acting on their own judgment? Does he accept that they should be made by someone who is independent of the security services and of government, and who can enjoy the confidence of the services, the Government, Parliament and the public?

593
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the test must always be whether a prosecution is likely to succeed and whether it is in the public interest now—rather than in the past—for a prosecution to go ahead?
Thirdly, given the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in June about the processes of Parliament, will the Government undertake to consider seriously making the security services' relationship with Parliament as democratically accountable as possible? They have a relationship with the Prime Minister and the Government: the Prime Minister appoints the committee. I think that the mood of the country is that they should come under the normal scrutiny of Parliament, as far as that is possible, by a Select Committee reporting to the House.
Finally, does the Home Secretary not agree that the current system is quaint, old-fashioned, clearly out of date and in need of reform? Three years ago, whatever his good intentions may have been, the Foreign Secretary of the day was able to decide that the first person to be entrusted with important information about espionage over several decades should be a Cambridge academic. Speaking as a Cambridge graduate, I might say that the history of Cambridge and spying made that even more incongruous. In any event, the first person to be entrusted with that information was a Cambridge academic, not Ministers, Government, Parliament or, indeed, the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister of the day.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said in general terms, and I congratulate him on his elevation to the post of Liberal Democrat spokesman on home affairs.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about decisions on whether or not to prosecute. As I have explained a number of times today, and will continue to explain, those are matters for the Law Officers rather than for Ministers, including the Home Secretary of the day. When the Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions—whose status is independent in this context—make decisions about prosecution, they follow the criteria laid down in the CPS code, which takes into account above all the evidence as to whether a prosecution is likely to succeed, but also takes into account other relevant material and questions, including the question of the public interest.
In this country, there is no age bar on prosecution per se. The House will recall that not long ago someone who had allegedly committed crimes during the war was subject to a prosecution, although by the time he was prosecuted he was at an advanced age.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the democratic accountability of the security and intelligence agencies. It has been suggested from time to time, in the House and elsewhere, that those agencies should be subject to a Select Committee, rather than to the Intelligence and Security Committee—which, by the way, was established by the House of Commons and the other place under an Act of Parliament. I am openminded about the arguments, but I feel—perhaps we should debate the issue in due course—that we should take the advice of those who have the important job of ensuring the accountability of the agencies on behalf of Parliament, namely members of the ISC. When the original proposals were made, there was no oversight committee of any kind. Let me add that I find it difficult to work out how, in practice, a Select
594
Committee could operate any differently from the way in which the ISC is operating. [HON. MEMBERS: "It would be appointed by the House."] Let us be clear about this. Members of the ISC are appointed in exactly the same way as members of Select Committees: they are appointed as a result of discussions between the forces of darkness in the usual channels.
The hon. Gentleman ended by suggesting that it was quaint and old-fashioned that the first people who knew about the activities of Mitrokhin knew about them as a result of the publication of a volume co-authored by Mr. Mitrokhin and Professor Andrew. I make no reference to whether Professor Andrew is an academic.
Let me say two things. First, this is an issue on which the House, as well as Ministers, will wish to hear the considered judgment of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I am certainly not going to prejudge its conclusions. Secondly, as I said in my statement, it should be borne in mind that the Mitrokhin archives are the property of Mr. Mitrokhin. The idea that has been floating around that somehow Ministers, or the agencies, could of their own volition have made their own decisions about whether the material should have surfaced, and about the form in which it should have surfaced, is wholly unreal.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald raised a question with me. I apologise to her for the fact that I did not answer it at the time. She asked why, given the condition that Sir Malcolm Rifkind had imposed on the non-publication of names where people had not been the subject of prosecution and conviction, the name none the less came out. My understanding—it will be the subject, I hope, of consideration by the ISC—is that the publishers were not going to name Mrs. Norwood either until she had given what amounted to a confession statement to the BBC and to other reporters. It was only at that stage that her name was made public.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I answer the Home Secretary's question by saying that a parliamentary Select Committee has all the protection of parliamentary privilege, which the ISC does not have?
As a member of that committee, may I say that we all take our duties very seriously? We want the inquiry to work. Committee members must have access to all the papers that we believe are relevant to our inquiry. My right hon. Friend said that he would "look sympathetically" at the question that was asked by the chairman of the committee, but we need a bit more than that. We need a guarantee that we will have access to every document that we believe is necessary for the inquiry's success.
Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for seeking to answer the question that was raised. As I have said, I am openminded on the question of a Select Committee, but I return to the point: what practical difference would it make, given the specific nature of the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which by definition inquires not into matters that are in the public domain but into matters that necessarily have to remain secret?
On my hon. Friend's question about access to all papers, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater spoke of all relevant papers. That is the key phrase that we will look at. My hon. Friend will be aware that the arrangements are that the committee itself does not have direct access

595
to some operational files, but that there is an investigator to work on behalf of the committee, if it so wishes—access can be granted in that way.
As I understand it, the principal concern of committee members is that they should have access to the advice to Ministers and to relevant material in that area. I have already said that I fully understand the case that my hon. Friend makes. I hope to give a positive answer as soon as possible. I am also fully aware that, if I fail to give an answer that is satisfactory to committee members, they will make their dissatisfaction known publicly.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Home Secretary please try to clarify several unclear matters in relation to the question of prosecution, or possible prosecution, of Mrs. Melita Norwood? He will recall that the book describes Mrs. Norwood as the most important KGB spy ever and alleges that she passed on very valuable atomic secrets at a highly sensitive time. On 13 September, he said in his statement that
"the Security Service were then currently considering whether to recommend the prosecution of Mrs. Norwood"—
that was in December 1998. Was any detailed evaluation of the case for prosecution carried out; if so, by whom, who took decisions on the matter, and when and what were they?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What was the right hon. and learned Gentleman doing in 1992?
Mr. Straw: As I made clear in my statement on 13 September and have made clear again today, the principal decision not to proceed to prosecute Mrs. Norwood was made in 1992–93. I can answer the sotto voce question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The answer is that the papers never went to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the former Attorney-General, because the decision not to prosecute was made within the Security Service. As I said, that raises important questions about who should or should not make decisions on prosecution in such cases.
I look forward to the advice and conclusions of the Intelligence and Security Committee on that matter, for which there is no hard and fast rule. In some cases, there is no evidence to put before anyone, so that it would simply be a waste of time to attempt to bring a prosecution. However, in cases such as this one, the ISC may well conclude that, when such great suspicions have been held over many years, decisions should be made by the Law Officers and the prosecuting authorities, not by officials within the Security Service—who have great skills in one sphere, but are not the ones who should make the final decision on such cases.
As for what followed in 1998, I merely refer the former Attorney-General to the next paragraph of my statement of 13 September 1999, which states that the Attorney-General had decided that, on the basis of the evidence that was then before him,
"1992 represented the last opportunity for the authorities to proceed by way of a criminal investigation/possible prosecution".
In spring 1999, the Attorney-General therefore concluded that there was no decision for him to make.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Does the Home Secretary agree that a person is not necessarily guilty of
596
something simply because his or her name appears in a handwritten document? In recent months, has not particularly The Sunday Times attempted to use the issue in a general smear against perfectly innocent Labour politicians and advisers? Is it not about time we heard the names of some Conservatives who—in the past 20, 30 or 40 years—happened to meet Soviet diplomats?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that simply because a Soviet diplomat or agent chooses to write a report that is sent to Moscow and includes the name of a perfectly innocent person, that person is not necessarily a KGB agent? Is it not time we stopped the witch hunting by the shadow Home Secretary, who is trying to use the issue in a general attack on all those who fought for democracy and freedom in central and eastern Europe and opposed the tyranny of Stalinism?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which is whether we go in for trial by denunciation.
Mr. Eric Forth: Ha!
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman scoffs. However, in September, the shadow Home Secretary proposed that I should come to the House and reveal all the names of those who were traitors living freely who had not been prosecuted—not those who had been prosecuted—unless there were clear security reasons for not doing so. To do that would be wholly improper, and would amount to conviction by denunciation. Moreover, I tell the shadow Home Secretary—who has made a great virtue of the fact that she would never say anything in the House that she would not say outside it—that if anyone, from the Home Secretary downwards, were to go outside the House and utter a list of those who were to be denounced as traitors without any evidence to convict them in a court of law, he or she would be subject to huge damages for defamation in our courts, and quite rightly so.
Mr. A. J. Beith: May I endorse, on behalf of Liberal Democrat Members, something that the Home Secretary said in his statement—that Mr. Mitrokhin was a very courageous man, who, over many years, did what he did because he was increasingly disgusted by what, from his unique vantage point, he saw going on in that evil regime? That fact should not be forgotten in these discussions. Does the Home Secretary also recognise that, were the ISC a Select Committee, it would have to be given the same additional power that the committee has explicitly asked him for—namely, of seeing advice to Ministers, which is central to the matter of what Ministers knew and when they knew it?
Mr. Straw: I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says about Mr. Mitrokhin's courage. It required huge courage to do what he did. I do not doubt that a great many other people working in the KGB during that long period were pretty disgusted with the work that they were asked to engage in, but very few of them had the courage and tenacity to work, as Mr. Mitrokhin did, to record a huge amount of what was passing across his desk and then to make himself known to intelligence agents in Moscow and have himself and his family brought out at considerable risk. I pay tribute again to his courage and acknowledge the benefits that the whole of the west has received as a result of his disclosures.

597
As I told the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, I fully understand the point about advice to Ministers and have great sympathy with it. I hope to give the committee an answer that is satisfactory to it as soon as possible. I am sure that if I give the committee an unsatisfactory answer we shall hear all about it.
Mr. Kevin Barron: The Intelligence and Security Committee—on which I serve—will be breaking new ground by taking on the investigation, as will Parliament. As I understand it, such issues of national security have normally been dealt with by the security commissioners, who have met in secret from time to time and have been able to have all papers in front of them so that they can see everything that has taken place and report whatever is relevant. Without access to all the relevant papers, I do not know how Parliament or my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary can ask our committee to do justice to such an inquiry.
Mr. Straw: Of course I understand that point. Were we to offer a paraphrase and memorandum of advice to Ministers rather than the plain text, questions would inevitably be raised about what we had to hide. I am sure that the same applies to Ministers in the previous Administration. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have nothing to hide. The gravamen of the memorandums has already been made public. However, I understand my hon. Friend's point and I shall do my best to ensure that there is a positive response to the committee.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is there not a slight contradiction in the Home Secretary paying tribute to the courage and tenacity of Mr. Mitrokhin in one breath and his hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) then saying that Mr. Mitrokhin's mere handwritten notes of what he saw in the files are not to be believed? Will the Home Secretary join me in acknowledging not only the bravery of Mr. Mitrokhin, but the resourcefulness of the Secret Intelligence Service in having recognised the value of what he was offering and having safely removed it and him from the Soviet Union?
Does the Home Secretary accept that handwritten notes are not the only factor in deciding whether the lady spy should be prosecuted, because she was mentioned in the Venona intercepts in telegram 1413 from Moscow to London on 16 September 1945? Will he answer the point put to him by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary: is it not clear that at least one senior elected member of the national council of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Professor Vic Allen, was a Stasi agent? His name has been widely published and he has not resorted to the libel action that he would have undertaken were he innocent.
Is there not a danger that the Government will seem to have a special interest in covering up issues of subversion in CND, given that 133 Labour Members of Parliament were members of parliamentary Labour CND at its height, including the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary?
598
Finally, does the Home Secretary now acknowledge that MI5 was right to keep an eye on CND in the 1980s, because at least one Stasi spy was operating within it? Was not the only failure of MI5 that it did not spot him when everybody knew that Vic Allen was a Stalinist?
Mr. Straw: There is no contradiction in information being contained in the Mitrokhin archive which may assert one thing and a decision then being made not to prosecute. The Mitrokhin archive contains a summary—in some cases a complete, if secondary, account—of what was in the archives that may or may not have been accurate, and that must be assessed.
It is well known that, in some cases, KGB agents and informers were more concerned with justifying their expense accounts than with providing accurate information. Such works of fiction could not in any sense form the basis of a prosecution, still less a denunciation.
Of course I applaud the resourcefulness of the Secret Intelligence Service. Without that resourcefulness—and without the courage of the SIS and its agents—the Mitrokhin archive would not have been made public.
I was asked about the alleged naming of Mrs. Norwood in the Venona book, published earlier this year under the pseudonym Nigel West—better known to this House as Rupert Allason, the former Member of Parliament for Torbay. As a result of information in that book, and in another called "The Haunted Wood"—both of which had fairly small sales, I believe—BBC researchers, working alongside those who were putting together what became the Mitrokhin archive book, worked out who Mrs. Norwood was.
The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) referred to CND. I am not privy, by definition, to the decisions made by previous Administrations—Labour and Conservative—in respect of work covering subversion by the security services. However, I understand that it was never the practice of the security services to study a trade union or an organisation. Their concern was to study people who they believed represented a threat to national security, whether or not they were in particular organisations.
As for Mr. Vic Allen, I am astonished that people are now getting excited about him. I happened to be at Leeds university at the same time as Mr. Vic Allen, who was, I believe, a lecturer. It was obvious beyond peradventure that he was an apologist for the East German regime and all its works, and we did not need the Stasi to tell us that 30 years later.
Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) knows about spying because he spied on the Labour party in the 1970s during the Reg Prentice affair.
As far as Mrs. Norwood is concerned, would not the most appropriate punishment for her—since she has reiterated her commitment to communism—be to invite her to live in one of the four remaining communist countries so that she could see the wonders of the system on whose behalf she was willing to spy against her own country and our democracy?
Should not we be very careful indeed about certain names, bearing in mind the fact that only four years ago Michael Foot was described as a Soviet spy? Michael Foot has been a lifelong anti-communist and resigned

599
from Tribune when it went through a brief period of fellow travelling just before the second world war. So ludicrous was the claim against him that the matter was settled out of court and he received, as I understand it, substantial damages. Is not that a lesson, showing that while we should certainly expose genuine spies—whether they spied for Nazi Germany or for the Soviet Union—we should be very careful indeed not to have a witch hunt against people such as Michael Foot who have exposed communism and its tyranny at every opportunity?
Mr. Straw: I entirely agree. The shadow Home Secretary wrote a piece in the Sunday Express on 25 July, headlined "MPs' privilege not a coward's charter". We would all agree with that. It is crucial that we should not abuse our privilege to make unsubstantiated allegations against individuals, against which they can have no redress in court. I am glad that the allegations against Michael Foot were made outside the House and were the subject of a successful action for defamation. Whether the allegations come from the left or the right, resorting to smears—unsubstantiated allegations against individuals—simply demeans our political debate.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: The Home Secretary referred to the positive vetting of Mrs. Norwood in the late 1940s when she worked for the British Non-Ferrous Metal Research Association. As someone who used to work for the Chemical Industries Association—whose initials are peculiarly appropriate in this context—I am confused, because I think he said that the security services positively vet only people whom they suspect. He seems to be shaking his head, which makes it even more interesting. Can he please assure me that nobody who works for a trade association now is routinely positively vetted? If such people are vetted, to which categories of trade associations and to which level of staff does that apply?
Mr. Straw: It has been a practice of long standing that people who have access to Government secrets, whether they work within Government or in the private sector, are subject to positive vetting. As someone with experience of positive vetting under the previous Government, I can tell the hon. Lady that it is not a process of which the subject is unaware. Quite rightly, the person concerned is interviewed thoroughly.
Mrs. Norwood was first vetted in 1945 because she was working for the British Non-Ferrous Metal Research Association which, despite its rather prosaic title and its cover as a trade association, was at the time undertaking secret work for the then Government's department of scientific and industrial research. For her to have any access to the secrets on which she would be working she had first to be positively vetted. Even in 1945, the Security Service, which had information relating to her that went back some years before that, raised doubts about her communist associations. It was very concerned about those associations, but further investigation by the service and the police together did not substantiate the doubts and she was given clearance for access to sensitive documents.
As I have already reminded the House, Mrs. Norwood did not in practice have further access from 1949—although it is accepted that a good deal of damage was done before that—and her clearance was withdrawn in 1951.

Standards and Privileges
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House—

(i) approves the Tenth and Eleventh Reports of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 747);

(ii) accordingly suspends Mr. Don Touhig, Member for Islwyn, from the service of the House for three sitting days; and

(iii) accordingly suspends Kali Mountford, Member for Colne Valley, from the service of the House for five sitting days.—[Mrs. Beckett.]

2.10 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The House is considering today a motion for the approval of the 10th and 11th reports of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which were agreed in July.
Our inquiry resulted from a report by the Social Security Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who was then Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been given a photocopy of a draft report on child benefit. The Committee had been unable to discover how this leak had come about and asked that the matter be placed before the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Liaison Committee, which I also chair, considered that the leak represented substantial interference with the work of the Social Security Committee. We have set out in our 10th report the circumstances surrounding the leak, and I shall summarise them for the benefit of the House.
The Social Security Committee met on 10 February to consider a draft report on child benefit. It was agreed during that meeting not to proceed to formal consideration, but to consider a revised draft at a future meeting. The Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), invited Committee members to ask Ministers to send Treasury officials to give evidence, and the desirability of enlisting my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn as an intermediary was discussed.
My hon. Friend told the Committee on Standards and Privileges that he was approached by two, or possibly three, members of the Social Security Committee in the course of 9 and 10 February. He asked the first hon. Member who spoke to him for a copy of the draft report so that he could understand the problem better. He received the copy at about tea time on 9 February and read parts of it later the same day. He then had conversations with special advisers at the Treasury about the Treasury's refusal to give evidence before the Committee, but did not discuss the draft report with them or with anyone else. The Treasury contacted the Clerk of the Committee on 11 February to say that it had been agreed that officials should appear on 24 February.
My hon. Friend told us that, in retrospect, he bitterly regretted having asked for a copy of the draft report and apologised unreservedly. He took full responsibility for that action and did not feel that he could name the person who had given him the draft report unless that person gave permission, which he or she had declined to do. Therefore, we concluded that my hon. Friend had to accept the consequences of both initiating the leak by asking for a copy of the draft report and refusing to answer a question put to him by the Committee.

601
We recommended that my hon. Friend should apologise to the House by means of a personal statement—which he has done—'and that he should be suspended from the service of the House for three sitting days. This recommendation took account of several mitigating circumstances that are outlined in our 10th report; we would otherwise have recommended a longer period of suspension. We had asked every member of the Social Security Committee whether he or she had given my hon. Friend a copy of the draft report: yes or no. All of them said no, so we did not know the identity of the leaker when we agreed the 10th report on 20 July. We noted that the leaker's failure to own up cast a cloud unfairly over the other members of the Social Security Committee and could only damage the Committee's standing in the House.
Before that report was published, my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) realised that the response that she had made to the Committee's inquiries had not been accurate. She wrote to me on 23 July, stating:
"I regret to say that I did allow … sight of my copy of the draft child benefit report to Don Touhig MP and I offer my full apologies to you for having done so."
The full text of the letter appears in our 11th report.
We welcome the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley to come forward, which has cleared the other members of the Social Security Committee of suspicion. The Committee on Standards and Privileges noted that my hon. Friend is not an experienced Member of Parliament and had been absent for much of the Session through illness. None the less, she aggravated her original serious offence by denying responsibility. The Committee recommended unanimously that she should apologise to the House by means of a personal statement—which she has done—and should be suspended from the service of the House for five sitting days.
It is, of course, of the greatest importance that the work of Select Committees investigating the operation of Government Departments is not obstructed by outside interference. The premature release of a draft report is a most serious matter because outside involvement with the report's conclusions might be attempted at that stage. If there were any suspicion that such practices existed, the standing of our whole Select Committee system could be questioned. We have made these recommendations with those considerations in mind.
It is a matter of great regret to me personally that I should be speaking for the second time this Session recommending that the House should agree to suspend from its service fellow hon. Members whom I know well and respect. However, the Committee agreed unanimously that the penalties were appropriate given the gravity of the offences and the way in which leaks such as this destroy essential trust among Committee members. I should also put on record the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn played a valuable part in the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley to admit her responsibility for, and involvement in, the leak. Therefore, I ask the House to uphold our conclusions and to approve the 10th and 11th reports of the Committee.
2.17 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: This is a sad occasion for the House—debates of this sort always are. I begin by underlining the fact that the Select
602
Committee on Standards and Privileges is representative of the whole House and that the reports we are debating were unanimous. I hope that I speak for the whole House when I thank the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who has given long and conspicuous service to the House, for the work that he has done since he became Committee Chairman. He has an onerous responsibility, which he shares with his colleagues and which he discharges with great distinction. We are grateful to him.
I do not want to speak at any length today—certainly not about the two hon. Members involved. I do not have the pleasure of knowing personally the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford). I do know the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), whom I consider to be an honourable Member of Parliament. He has acknowledged that he made a mistake, as has the hon. Lady, and they have made their apologies to the House. I believe that the House should approve the report and leave it at that as far as those two hon. Members are concerned.
However, this is a serious episode which contains some important lessons for hon. Members on both sides of the House. The comments of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne about the standing of Select Committees are extremely important. Since their establishment in departmental form some 20 years ago this December, Select Committees have performed an important function. However, the Select Committee is only as valuable as its own dispassionate impartiality will allow it to be. If a Select Committee or any of its members views the role of that Committee as being somehow to aid and abet Government, they are misinterpreting its function. It is the job of the Select Committee to hold the Executive to account, to scrutinise and, where appropriate, to criticise. If there is, or there appears to be, collusion between Government and those on the Select Committee, the whole system is undermined.
One can understand that new Members in particular feel a certain degree of over-exuberance or a certain desire to please the Government of the day. Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who occupy a sort of political no-man's-land—they are not Ministers, nor are they Back-Bench Members in the absolute sense of the word because they have a quasi-governmental position—sometimes find their loyalties stretched. Anybody who has been a PPS knows that to be the case. From 1970 to 1973 I was one myself—
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): With enormous distinction.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, indeed, with enormous distinction, as the right hon. Gentleman says.
The fact is that when a Member serves on a Select Committee, he or she must put that duty before all others and when a Member is a PPS, he or she must recognise that it is important that Select Committee members should not in any sense have the impartiality of their inquiry undermined or attacked in any way.
I hope that the Leader of the House, who perfectly understandably moved the motion formally, will respond to the debate. After all, the Government have a role here. They must resist the temptation of either soliciting goods to which they have no entitlement or misusing stolen property if they receive it. Without wanting to expand too

603
much on those points—or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rightly call me to order—I would say that there has been a disturbing proliferation of leaks of one sort or another since 1 May 1997 and several of those have involved the work of Select Committees.
In the coming Session, we should all consider the way in which Select Committees are appointed. If their impartiality is to be absolutely beyond question, we must examine their appointment and the role of Government in the nomination of their members. I personally should like a much more independent Committee of Selection deciding who should serve on Select Committees by looking at the credentials of the Members who apply. We want Members nominated to a Select Committee because of their particular expertise or interest in the subject concerned, rather than because they have been nominated by the Whips' Office. [Laughter.] The Secretary of State may laugh, but that is what has happened.
I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is probably sitting behind me. I am also aware that if he is behind me physically, he will be behind me enthusiastically in the points that I seek to make. My hon. Friend was indeed the victim in a previous incarnation. He had my support then as I know I have his support in making these points now.
It is never too late for a sinner to come to repentance. The fact that we may have appointed Select Committees in certain ways in the past, regardless of who was in government, does not mean that we should not look at the system afresh. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is determined to restore the primacy of Parliament, the centrality of this Chamber and the independence of the instruments that it devises, even if that means temporary discomfiture in future to a Conservative Government. Given the present Government's enormous majority, the Leader of the House could, without any real danger to herself or her colleagues, consider whether it might not be better in the service of this House and of parliamentary democracy to have Select Committees appointed in the way that I suggest.
I do not wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule me out of order. These points are relevant and have been underlined in the reports to the House by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. We should thank him for what he has done because if any Member has been prepared to be wholly impartial and to put his duties to this House before any others, it is the right hon. Gentleman. We owe him a debt of gratitude for that. His Committee has done the right thing. Although it is always sad when Members are suspended from the service of the House, it is right on this occasion that they should be. We support this report.
2.25 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I endorse a number of the comments made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). Although this is a short debate, I hope that it will be seen to be serious and instructive for the conduct of the House and its business.
I am satisfied from what I have read in the report and from conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the
604
Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, that there was a genuine attempt by a PPS to be helpful—indeed, it turned out to be helpful, although the request for a Committee paper was mistaken and he has accepted that it was wrong. There was over-enthusiasm on the part of an inexperienced new Member who was also trying to be helpful, but nevertheless was in clear breach of the rules as stated in the copy of the report that she had before her, namely that it should not be disclosed to anybody other than members of the Committee. They have apologised and on the basis of this report, they are being recommended for an appropriate disciplinary measure. They have made statements to the House and we can now draw a line under the matter.
This Parliament is characterised by many new Members and a Government with a large majority, and this matter points to the need for Members to recognise that their job is not just to uphold the Government, which in the case of Labour Members they were elected to support, but that they have a responsibility to Parliament. Indeed, Parliament has a responsibility to call the Executive, whoever they are, effectively to account.
In most cases, the work of a Select Committee is not partisan; there is a genuine attempt to seek consensus. Select Committees probe the effectiveness of Government policy and, in some cases, try to prevent the Government from making mistakes by ensuring that policy is properly scrutinised through calling expert witnesses and questioning the practicalities of Government policy. Clearly, it is not helpful if Government members of Select Committees see protecting the Government as overriding their responsibility to Parliament and the quality of legislation.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I share the hon. Gentleman's views about the need for disinterestedness, impartiality and independence from Government of all Select Committee members. He may recall that, many years ago when we both served on the Scottish Affairs Committee, we consistently and persistently argued the need for such high levels of conduct to the Conservative members who leaked to the then Government so disgracefully.
Mr. Bruce: That is true, but to be fair to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, whose personal integrity I accept, his comments were sincere. The fact that, in the past, Governments and their supporters have behaved disgracefully should not be used as an excuse or justification for a Government of a different persuasion to behave in that way today. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne for making it clear how strongly the Committee feels. I hope that those elected at the last general election, not just those on the Government side, will accept that their responsibility to Parliament must always override their loyalty to the Government of the day.
It is perhaps unfortunate that Governments tend to put Members on a Select Committee to see how they do. One notices how many Members serve for only a short time on a Select Committee. Indeed, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has complained about the rapid turnover in the membership of his Committee as, indeed, has the Chairman of the Treasury Committee. Select Committees are seen as a recruiting ground for talent.

605
The problem is that there is a conflict in the mind of members of Select Committees as to whether their job on the Committee is to please the Government and secure promotion, or to serve Parliament and improve the quality of legislation. It might help if a Government with such a large majority accepted that it would be a good idea to ensure that Committee membership was balanced by experience and parliamentary responsibility, and was not only a recruitment and training ground for Ministers which kept hon. Members quiescent and compliant. A Government with a majority of this size surely do not need quislings on Select Committees to conduct their business—although I am not suggesting that anybody has behaved in that manner.
The serious point is that Select Committees do some of the most effective and respected work of this House. Select Committee reports are read with interest and are seen to be objective. I know that Committee Chairmen strive to secure consensus, but their ability to do so effectively is dependent on the Government majority in those Committees recognising their responsibility to question the Executive and call them reasonably and responsibly to account, and I suggest to the Leader of the House that that is in the best interests of the Government.
On that basis, it is helpful that the report has come to the House, and I hope that many Members who have not been in the House for long will realise that they have a genuine responsibility to consider and will not make similar mistakes.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House—

(i) approves the Tenth and Eleventh Reports of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 747);

(ii) accordingly suspends Mr. Don Touhig, Member for Islwyn, from the service of the House for three sitting days; and

(iii) accordingly suspends Kali Mountford, Member for Colne Valley, from the service of the House for five sitting days.

Procedural Consequences of Devolution
[Relevant document: The Second Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on The Operation of Multi-Layer Democracy, HC 460.]
2.31 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Fourth Report from the Procedure Committee on The Procedural Consequences of Devolution (HC 185), and the First Special Report from the Committee (HC 814) containing the Government Response.
The Government will table motions to agree with the Committee's recommendations on questions to Ministers, Select Committees and the Advocate General for Scotland. Those will appear on the Order Paper and will be put to the House on Monday.
I am very grateful, as I am sure the whole House is, to the Procedure Committee for its careful study of the consequences for this House of the devolution legislation that we passed in the previous Session. The Committee has examined the situation as it developed and advised the House of the changes that we need or may need to make. It has drawn on the experience of many senior Members of the House who chair the Select and Grand Committees most closely affected by devolution. That collective wisdom is distilled in the report that was published after the elections in Scotland and Wales and before power was transferred.
The Committee's report sets out four common principles that the Government commend to the House. They are, in short, that parliamentary procedures should not be called in aid to undermine the devolution settlement agreed by Parliament; that there should be minimal procedural barriers to close co-operation between MPs and Members of the devolved legislatures; that all MPs have an interest in matters that remain the responsibility of the UK Parliament and that there should be consistency in the way that the House deals with devolved legislatures. That all chimes well with the Government's approach. We want devolution to be a success and we shall encourage measures to ensure smooth functioning of that process. In addition, we believe that although some procedural change at Westminster may become necessary, that should evolve in the light of experience.
This is not the first debate on the consequences for Westminster of devolution and I strongly suspect that it will not be the last. Today we are putting forward some proposals for change, but others may become necessary when we see how relations between this House and the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales develop in practice. I welcome the Procedure Committee's intention to keep those matters under review and to report again to the House.
Central to the devolution settlement is the fact that there are now some matters for which UK Ministers are no longer responsible. That must mean that they will be unable to respond to questions and debates on such matters in Parliament. That has happened before; for example, when nationalised industries were privatised. On this occasion, the Committee has put forward a resolution defining the subjects on which questions should no longer

607
be tabled. I accept that, in the end, that will depend on the answering practices adopted by Ministers, but the resolution will give the House a firm basis for asking questions.
I accept that even those who sat through all the debates on each of the devolution Bills may, on occasion, lack instant recall of which subjects are now devolved and which are not. We have, therefore, commissioned a paper for Members and peers which summarises the division between reserved and devolved matters under the devolution legislation. As soon as that is ready, it will be placed in the Library. It does not seek to be a definitive statement—that is ultimately a matter of statute law—but I hope that it will assist colleagues in understanding where the border lies.
We also accept the recommendation that Scottish questions be reduced to 30 minutes, subject to discussions through the usual channels about the rota for oral questions. At this stage, no change is planned for Welsh questions, which are in any case shorter.
As the Procedure Committee points out, the remit of the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee will also be affected by devolution. In one respect, the role of the two Select Committees will change to reflect the reduced responsibilities of the two Secretaries of State, but in another it will broaden to include liaison with the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
The Procedure Committee recommended that the operation of the Grand Committees be suspended during the experiment with sittings in Westminster Hall. We have always accepted that some adjustment to the procedures of those Committees would be necessary, but I am reluctant at this early stage to dispense with what is still a useful procedure.
There will continue to be important Welsh and Scottish matters that need to be debated in the House. Whether they are debated on the Floor, in Westminster Hall or in a Grand Committee can depend on circumstances. I do not want to close off one option so soon, particularly before we have seen how the Westminster Hall experiment works. That experiment is designed to provide time for additional debates on subjects that are not usually covered elsewhere. If part of that time is taken up with debates that would otherwise be held in the Grand Committees, the scope for such additional debates will be restricted from the outset.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: In the light of the fact that the Government do not accept the Procedure Committee's recommendation for the Grand Committees, will the right hon. Lady give us examples of circumstances in which she thinks that it would be valuable to have debates in the Grand Committees?
Mrs. Beckett: The recommendation would not be of much value to the House, as I have already said. The matter will have to be considered in differing circumstances, but the House may take the view that there is virtue in airing a matter in a Grand Committee. If we ultimately find that the route is not needed, we can
608
reconsider the matter. It is a little early to decide to close off that option and to do so would conflict with the establishment of the Westminster Hall sittings.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Perhaps I should declare an interest as an elected Member of the National Assembly for Wales. The situation in Wales is somewhat different from that in Scotland, and it is felt that the Welsh Grand Committee may well have a role, albeit a different role, in handling matters for which there is specific legislation for Wales. For example, if the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 needed to be amended, the Grand Committee could be a fast-track procedure so that we would not have an inordinate wait in the queue for time in the House. The Committee would be able to make relatively minor changes needed by the National Assembly for Wales.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman reinforces the point that I have just made: there can be a continuing role for the Grand Committees. He suggests a legislative role. The Committees could also deal with the relevant annual estimates. No doubt, different examples will spring to the mind of other Members. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming our view that the Grand Committees are an option that should not be closed to the House.
Mr. John Swinney: In the Government's response to the Procedure Committee's recommendation on the Grand Committees, they suggest that the Committees may meet to discuss reserved matters. The guidance given by the Clerks of the House on other aspects of the Procedure Committee's report suggests that Ministers can deal only with issues for which they have responsibility. It is hard to imagine circumstances on a reserved issue that may come before a Grand Committee where, for example, the Secretary of State for Scotland may appear, where he would have direct ministerial responsibility. Can the Leader the House give us an example of such circumstances?
Mrs. Beckett: Other Ministers might appear before the Grand Committee; it need not be the Secretary of State for Scotland. That depends on the matters that are before the Committee. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman is again reinforcing the case that there is a potential continuing role for the Grand Committee. In this debate, we are merely arguing that it is too early to close off that route.
The House may reach a different view in the fullness of time. We may decide that there are other routes and that this route is no longer needed, but we consider that it is too early to decide. Indeed, I understand that the Scottish National party said in evidence to the Procedure Committee that there was virtue in that procedure remaining available to the House.
The Procedure Committee made another interesting recommendation in its report—that Bills that could be certified as relating to only one of the four parts of the United Kingdom should have their Second Reading debate in a Standing Committee. I am certainly in favour of holding the Second Reading debate of less controversial Bills, by agreement, in a Second Reading Committee, but I consider that that should depend on the subject of the Bill, not on whether it relates solely to England, Scotland or Wales.

609
I admit that it is hard to envisage that there will be many occasions, if any, when it would be possible to classify a Bill as relating exclusively to England, but I certainly agree that there would be strong reservations about restricting participation in debate on such a matter to what would inevitably, in a Second Reading Committee, be very few Members and a small proportion of the sum total of 528 Members who represent English constituencies. Of course, in any case the decision on Second Reading would remain with the whole House.
I welcome the initiatives that have been taken to foster close contact between Committees of the House and those of the devolved legislatures. The Procedure Committee's report sets out some of the issues involved in the exchange of documents and formal joint meetings. I believe that the whole House recognises how much can be achieved by informal contacts. It is still early days in the operation of the devolved legislatures, and time is needed for those working relationships to develop and settle down. Therefore I believe that the whole House would welcome the Procedure Committee's willingness to keep those matters under review. I would undertake to the House to consider moving any necessary motion in the House to overcome any specific case of difficulty, but I consider that it is early to change these procedures before we have a clearer idea of what is likely to be needed in practice.
Arrangements for fostering good relations with devolved legislatures go beyond procedural matters as such. The Government hope that members of the devolved legislatures could be given at least as much access to this place as Members of the European Parliament are, but of course that is a matter for the domestic Committees of the House. The House will be aware that it is already possible for MPs to visit Edinburgh and Cardiff on parliamentary business under the extended travel scheme, and it remains to be seen what arrangements the devolved legislatures adopt for access to their premises by MPs and peers.
I believe that, as a whole, the Procedure Committee's report and the Government's response to it provide a way forward for the House to respond to the immediate consequences of devolution. The Committee will study developments and report again. In the light of experience, our procedures may well need to evolve further. In the meantime, I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will do everything that they can to ensure good working relationships with the devolved bodies.
As we are the Parliament that passed the devolution legislation, we should be—and I hope that we shall be—slow to criticise and quick to encourage the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. It can only be to the good of all parts of the United Kingdom that good relationships exist between elected bodies in all parts of this kingdom, and I hope that no hon. Member can disagree with that.
2.44 pm
Sir George Young: The Opposition welcome the debate. It has been some five months since the report was published. There might have been some advantage in debating it before 1 July, not least because the Committee produced the report concentrating
"on those matters which need to be addressed before July".
However, I am aware that there were pressures on parliamentary business in the summer, and I welcome the opportunity to debate the report this afternoon.
610
Given that the Government's response to the report was published as recently as yesterday, I agree with their decision not to ask the House to implement their recommendations today, especially where those are at variance with the Committee's proposals. I think it right to invite us instead to take note, with further debates on the specific resolutions as and when the Government decide to take matters forward—Monday for some of the resolutions. Many are non-controversial and can be activated quite quickly.
Like the Leader of the House, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and his Committee for grappling with this important subject. Devolution is like one of those fireworks with sequential bursts of different colours. Just when one thinks that it has finished, there is another explosion of light. The Committee's report provides a further burst of illumination on the devolution landscape. I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Committee on producing a unanimous report on such a complex issue.
I do not believe that the House or the country have fully woken up to all the changes that devolution will bring about, although the recent tensions on beef on the bone have given us a preview. That issue shows how the language of devolution can conflict with some of the centralising imperatives of Downing street.
Our overall approach is to make devolution in Wales and Scotland work; to accept the verdict of the two referendums and to look forward. We welcome the publication of the concordats earlier in the month, although they were a little bit later than was originally expected. However, the Opposition have a caveat, which is very relevant in the context of the report.
In our view, for England, the present devolution settlement is neither stable nor defensible. I do not propose to develop that argument fully in this debate, because it was very well set out in July by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies. In a nutshell, now that we have new arrangements for resolving domestic priorities and legislative programmes in Scotland—arrangements to which English and Welsh MPs are not a party—it is no longer appropriate for Scottish MPs to retain rights on the same issues in England and Wales.
When I address the key paragraphs of the report—paragraphs 23 to 27—I hope to show that the Select Committee's recommendations provide some important building blocks towards a more equitable settlement that will rebalance the constitution and remove the inequity for English voters and English Members of Parliament. I very much regret the fact that the Government have chosen to reject this most important section of the report, and to leave us with an indefensible status quo.
The first paragraph of the report sets the whole tone, and the Leader of the House picked that up. It is essentially a cautious approach, speaking of
"some of the changes which may be required"
to House of Commons procedure. The Committee advocates an evolutionary approach. It says that
"arrangements made may well have to be adapted in the light of experience."
It
"intends a full review of the procedural consequences of devolution in due course."

611
Therefore, the report is very much a first-sighting shot at what needs to be done, and it should be recognised as such.
Paragraph 2 suggests a "constitutional affairs committee", but does not spell out how that would be constituted, how it would relate to the existing institutions of the House, or what its terms of reference might be. The Committee will no doubt want to return to that subject in due course, to fill in some important details.
The difficulties that confronted the Committee, and that confront the House and the Government, are listed in paragraph 5, headed "General Principles", which I note the Government have accepted.
Some of the four principles pull in opposite directions. Principle No. 1 is that parliamentary procedure or custom should not undermine the fact of devolution, but principle No. 3 appears to qualify that, by saying:
"it is legitimate for all Members … to have an interest in matters which remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament".
That is fine, but the report continues:
"however Members from an area to which powers have been devolved will have a particular interest in business affecting that area".
Principle No. 2 states that, if co-operation is desired, procedural barriers should not prevent it. Co-operation may be desired by Members of this House in a matter that has been devolved, but Members of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly may not want it. It is not clear how principle No. 2 would operate in that case.
Mr. Desmond Browne: Lest the point be lost by the right hon. Gentleman moving on too quickly, will he make it clear whether he, on behalf of the official Opposition, accepts the third general principle?
Sir George Young: I have no difficulty with the principles. I am hoping to show that their application may be difficult when there is ambiguity about which principle comes first. Almost anything could be brought into order in the House under the second principle by a Member simply asserting that, although the matter was devolved, in his or her view, co-operation was desirable.
There is also a difference in emphasis on the principles between the memorandum of understanding published by the Lord Chancellor earlier this month and the Government's response. Paragraph 14 of the memorandum reads:
"The United Kingdom Parliament retains the absolute right to debate, enquire into or make representations about devolved matters. It is ultimately for Parliament to decide what use to make of that power, but the UK Government will encourage the UK Parliament to bear in mind the primary responsibility of devolved legislatures and administrations in these fields".
That is much softer than principle No. 1, which reads:
"Parliament has agreed that certain powers and responsibilities should pass from it to the devolved legislatures; parliamentary procedure or custom should not be called in aid to undermine that decision".
We need to ensure that Parliament and Government are working to the same ground rules. Perhaps at some point we could debate the concordats and return to some of these issues. As I have said, we welcome the recent concordats.
Mr. Michael Connarty: In seeking clarification, is it not legitimate for any representative in
612
any part of the legislative framework to show interest and attempt to inform the debate? It has been said that devolved legislation will be dealt with in the place to which it has been devolved.
Sir George Young: Yes. I just wonder how one interprets that principle. Although it looks fine, Members may pray in aid different principles in arguing that something is in order. Indeed, it would be possible to develop as strong an argument that it was out of order from reading another principle.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): In fairness, let us give the full picture. The right hon. Gentleman says that, while Parliament has the sovereignty and right to debate everything, the Government will encourage Members to respect the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament and to the National Assembly for Wales. That is one part of the argument. However, if he turns the page of the memorandum of understanding, he will see that paragraph 15 states:
"The devolved legislatures will be entitled to debate non-devolved matters, but the devolved executives will encourage each devolved legislature to bear in mind the responsibility of the UK Parliament in these matters."
It is symmetrical. The idea behind the concordats and what we are trying to achieve by setting precedents is to encourage a partnership and a mutual respect for the rights and responsibilities of both the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures.
Sir George Young: I take the point, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that there is a difference in emphasis between saying, "You will encourage Parliament to bear something in mind," which is what the memorandum says, and saying explicitly that parliamentary procedure or custom should not be called in aid to undermine that decision. I am saying that the Government have come up with a memorandum of understanding, which I accept, while the Procedure Committee has come up with a somewhat different approach to the same question. We need to ensure that Parliament and Government have the same ground rules on the same issues.
Dr. Reid: This is an important point because the concordats are not between Parliament and Parliament, but between Government and the Scottish Executive. Parliamentary procedures are matters not for diktat by Government, but for this Parliament. That is why we are debating them. It would have been inappropriate for the Government to do other than arrive at an agreement with their counterparts in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. As a Parliament, we are discussing how we should interpret such matters. That is entirely in accord with the precedents of the House. Of course we shall try to ensure that there is no nuance of difference between the documents, but that requires discussion, as our debate shows.
Sir George Young: The way in which to resolve the issue would be for the Government to say, without equivocation, that, where there is a dispute, they would accept the Procedure Committee's comments, which would override the memorandum of understanding. The report is what Parliament has said, and it is what we are

613
debating. We are taking note of what the Procedure Committee—[Interruption.] I should like to make some progress. I have some important points to make.
On subjects for questions, I agree with the Committee that we cannot simply leave the decision on what is in order to Ministers. The report puts this rather delicately:
"the attitude of ministers to certain issues is not constant".
It must be right that the decision should rest with Parliament and the Speaker.
I find some ambiguity in the resolution drafted by the Clerk at the end of paragraph 10, which is an attempt to resolve the issue. It recommends that questions can be tabled that relate to matters which
"UK Government ministers have taken an official interest in"—
not a legitimate interest or an interest which the law on devolution allows them to take, but an official interest. What is an official interest? Is it an interest that has been expressed by somebody who holds ministerial office? The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could take an official interest in whether beef on the bone is banned in Scotland—but should he answer questions on that matter? The answer is no if we accept the principle in paragraph 5 of the Committee's report, but yes if we read paragraph 10, which would allow questions on anything in which the Minister has taken an official interest.
Mr. Browne: I am fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Where does the law on devolution disallow a Minister taking an interest in any subject? We are talking not of federalism or independence, but of devolution.
Sir George Young: The principles to which I have referred specifically rule out intervention on certain issues. One such principle is that we should not do anything that undermines the principle of devolution. I am saying that, if "an official interest" is not defined, the principle can be undermined by declaring a question in order whenever a Minister has taken an official interest in the subject, even if that interest is precluded by what is set out in statute.
I think that the Government recognise some of those problems but are reluctant to find a solution. There is an admirably frank quotation of the Leader of the House in the report. She said
"there will be … a number of grey areas."
The past 10 minutes have illustrated that. She continued:
"I am reluctant to get drawn into the precise boundaries of the settlement and the judgements which might be made; indeed that will, happily for me, be a matter for the chair."
On oral questions, the Committee reflected the continuing uncertainty over the need for, and the role of, a Secretary of State for Scotland. It did not say that there should always be a separate Question Time for the Secretary of State for Scotland; it simply said that it would be "premature" to decide that it was no longer needed. Perhaps the Secretary of State will shed some light on that when he replies.
If devolution is to work, there can be no argument that we can justify allocating the same time for Scottish questions. I accept the recommendation and the proposals for discussion through the usual channels on what happens to the extra 10 minutes that will become available—the first of the devolution dividends.
614
I agree with the recommendations on Grand Committees. The Modernisation Committee has drawn our attention to the luxuriant foliage of the Committees. Many Members wanted to rationalise and streamline them. We now have just such an opportunity. Grand Committees sit uneasily with devolution; once we have devolution, their purpose is diminished. The Government argue that it is premature to abolish such Committees, and I would not go to the stake over that. The Procedure Committee suggests that they are suspended while we see what happens with the Westminster Hall sittings, but the Government suggest that we keep them while we see what happens in Westminster Hall. The matter should be reviewed, perhaps in a year.
On the scope of Select Committees, the Government appear to take a different view from the Procedure Committee. If my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall listen to him with interest.
The section on legislation is the most interesting part of the report. I was pleased to find support from the Procedure Committee for the argument that, in the light of the arrangements for Scotland and for Wales, different procedures may now be necessary for England. The Committee anticipates conflict, and wisely suggests procedures for minimising it. I regret that the Government have rejected the proposals.
I was especially interested in the proposal to change rules "by convention", which is set out in paragraph 23. Changing rules by convention is a means of reform in the House without primary legislation. For example, if the Government lose a vote of no confidence, the Prime Minister asks for a dissolution. There is no rule; it is a convention. If there is support for the proposition that matters that affect England should be voted on only by English Members—a number of Scottish Members have already indicated their support for that—it is for consideration whether that might be done by convention rather than legislation.
Paragraphs 25 and 26 are important for the argument about English Bills. Indeed, they pave the way for the proposals that have been set out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It is worth reading the relevant section in full. It states:
"The main point of principle to be considered is whether it is appropriate to retain special procedures for bills relating exclusively to one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, as currently apply to bills relating exclusively to Scotland or Wales. On balance we believe it is. There may soon be governments of different parties in different parts of the United Kingdom; party balances already differ in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."
That is a very important section, because it concedes the principle—I believe for the first time—of new procedures for legislation that affects England. Once that point has been conceded, English votes for English Bills are a logical conclusion. Indeed, on page 59, in evidence, that was proposed.
Paragraph 28 also concedes that representation on Bills dealing with English legislation should be in accordance with party balance in England. The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) stated:
"As a Scottish MP, frankly I am not terribly interested in having a say over the English health budget, the way in which health policy is going or education, and all the matters over which responsibility

615
has been devolved to Scotland, I think it is right and proper that English MPs should be left to consider the equivalent legislation in England for themselves."
There speaks a Scottish Member of Parliament.
Mr. Wigley: Taking forward the logic that only English Members of Parliament should determine legislation that applies only to England, does the right hon. Gentleman accept the corollary that Welsh Members of Parliament should determine matters that apply only to Wales but are passed in this Parliament?
Sir George Young: The logic is precisely that. Where Bills apply only to England and Wales, which is more likely to be so, only English and Welsh Members of Parliament should vote, and likewise if Bills apply only to Wales.
Mr. Browne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir George Young: This is the last time that I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Browne: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way for the third time; he is extremely patient. Would he further concede that, under the principle of English votes for English laws, in the rare circumstances in which the House might need to legislate on a devolved matter, with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament, only Scottish Members should be allowed to vote on that legislation?
Sir George Young: I am not sure in what circumstances the House would legislate on a matter that applied only to Scotland and not to other elements of the United Kingdom. To those who have difficulty with the principle, the important point to make is that it was not dreamed up by the Conservatives. The principle that I read out was approved unanimously by a Procedure Committee on which nine members of the governing party serve. I am not the only one who is enunciating and defending a principle; the principle found favour with a Committee of the House.
The Committee report goes on to say that it is too early to tell whether legislation relating to a single part of the UK will be brought forward frequently. However, it must be likely that legislation covering England and Wales will be introduced. The Committee does not seem to have dealt with that. Paragraph 24 covers legislation relating solely to one of the four component parts, as does the recommendation in paragraph 27. That should be amended to cover Bills that affect only England and Wales.
The Committee deals with one of the principal objections to the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition: designating Bills as applying only to one part of the UK. It has been argued that that would put an impossible burden on the Speaker and, therefore, was not a feasible solution, but the Committee clearly comes to a different view in paragraph 27.
On the key recommendation that the Speaker should be able to certify that a Bill applies solely to England, the Government put the telescope to their blind eye. The Committee spells out, in paragraph 26, precisely why it considers such a procedure necessary. Devolution has
616
changed the constitution. Important principles about legislation that applies to only one part of the UK are raised. In order to anticipate and avert conflict, the Committee believes that provision should be made.
How do the Government respond to that considered view? They simply assert in paragraph 8:
"If … it were possible to identify some bills as relating exclusively to England, it is not clear what benefit this would have for the House."
The entire debate about the West Lothian question and the imbalance in the constitution has gone straight over their heads. It is not that they disagree with the solution; they do not believe that there is a problem.
The Select Committee also proposes that the Standing Order that requires Standing Committees to reflect party strength in the House be lifted, so that it can reflect party strength in the relevant constituent part. Again, that supports my right hon. Friend's proposition for English Bills.
The report provides a basis for dealing with the West Lothian question—a question that the Government have found so awkward that the Lord Chancellor has advised us to stop asking it. We will not; nor should we. The Government's view, apparently, is that Scottish Members of Parliament should continue to vote on English Bills. As they stated in their White Paper:
"Scotland's Members of Parliament will continue to play a full and constructive part in the proceedings of the House of Commons."
That view is not supported by public opinion in Scotland, and it is certainly not supported by public opinion in England. [Interruption.] In an opinion poll in Scotland, there was a majority for the proposition that Scottish Members of Parliament should not vote on English domestic legislation.
The Government's proposal for regional assemblies is not an appropriate answer. First, the powers that would be given to the English regions would not compare to those being devolved to Edinburgh; and, secondly, a region will get an assembly only if the Government can demonstrate that there is demand for it. In my region, there is no such demand. England should not have regional government and an extra tier of administration foisted upon it, simply so that the Government can fudge the West Lothian question.
In rejecting the recommendations, the Government are clutching at straws. They recognise that a Committee of English Members of Parliament would have to sit in the Chamber. That is fair enough, but they dismiss that because
"it would be difficult to exclude any other Members of the House—though if they wished to be called in debate they would presumably be less likely to catch the Speaker's eye than Members with a constituency interest."
That is a bogus argument, and symptomatic of the culture of excuses that the Prime Minister condemned this morning. The difficulty to which the Government refer is no different from the difficulty that Standing Committees might have at present. Certain Members are entitled to take part in their proceedings, and others are not. I am not aware that that has presented us with any difficulties, and the Government will have to come up with a better alibi than that.
The rest of the report is straightforward. I agree with the proposals on private and delegated legislation. On relationships between Westminster and the devolved

617
legislature, I strongly agree with paragraph 37, which stresses the importance of personal contact. There is much to be said for regular informal meetings, which is how my party has addressed the issue. So far, nothing too offensive has been said in the House about Members of the Scottish Parliament, or the other way round. I hope that that tolerance will continue to be observed, and survive the forthcoming encounter on the soccer pitch.
We shall need to return to the subject. With the qualifications that I mentioned at the beginning, I support what has been proposed, but I believe that it should be taken to its logical conclusion of English votes on English Bills, building on the reforms proposed by the Committee and sadly rejected by the Government.
Our proposals would work within the conventions and traditions of the Westminster Parliament; they are based on precedents; they are accepted as fair in Scotland; and they represent common sense. Above all, they would deal with the English question and make the Union stronger. I must say to the Government that I believe they are making a serious mistake in their response, and it will fall to a different Administration to put right this constitutional mistake, along with all the rest that they have got wrong.
3.8 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: As Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, may I say that we are affected by the consequences of devolution and we welcome the Procedure Committee's report. We also welcome the Government's response to that report, as far as it goes.
When we were asked by the Procedure Committee for our views, I felt both as an individual and as a 110 per cent. supporter of the Assembly that there probably was no role for the Welsh Affairs Committee, as it considered the responsibilities and duties of the Welsh Office, and as the Welsh Office functions to be performed by the Assembly would be overseen by Members of the Assembly who had been elected for that purpose.
However, we considered the matter individually and as a Committee and on reflection, it seemed that, if anything, our role would be enhanced. There were many reasons for that, one of which was that the Assembly does not have primary legislative powers. The Government have rightly called for a greater role for the Select Committee in pre-legislative scrutiny. We believed that, at some time in the future, the Assembly was bound to want legislation from this place, as the only source of primary legislation. At present, the only conduit for that legislation is via the Secretary of State for Wales. Assembly Members' worry was that that may not always work. Therefore—surprisingly in some respects—they felt that the Welsh Affairs Committee should continue. I would have expected them to share my original reservation that they would not want to be second-guessed by a Committee of the House considering their functions.
The corollary of any legislation that the Assembly may require is its need to be considered on an England-Wales basis, and particularly with regard to Wales. I shall not touch on Scotland, which I am sure has its own views. With legislation being promoted and put forward in this place for England and Wales, there is obviously a role for pre-legislative scrutiny of that legislation as it pertains to Wales. Only the Select Committee could consider such legislation.
618
Before devolution, the Select Committee had an informal meeting with the National Assembly advisory group, which, as hon. Members may or may not be aware, included representatives of all parties and was set up before devolution to advise on the Assembly's Standing Orders. It was supportive of the role that we believed the Welsh Affairs Committee to have.
The problem with a pre-legislative role is that much legislation will pertain to England and Wales, and the Select Committee may not have time to consider each piece. The Assembly may not want every piece of legislation pertaining to England and Wales considered in so far as it relates to Wales, but it may give evidence to the Select Committee, focusing on those pieces of legislation that it would like us to scrutinise. Those are two distinct roles that could be performed by the Select Committee, and the Procedure Committee accepted our consensual view, which was given to it in evidence.
Since devolution, we have had other meetings with the Assembly, both informal, with regard to how we proceed in future, and also to consider—in this early period of devolution of suck it and see—what kind of functions it would like the Select Committee to perform and what kind of structures it would like to see. We have had meetings with the First Secretary, with departmental Secretaries and with the Assembly's Chairmen's Panel. They are all in favour of the Select Committee carrying on, and I am pleased that the Government have accepted that view. I am sure that they support our view. We feel strongly that it is a way of helping devolution along and ironing out any problems that may occur.
One of our proposals which was not accepted initially concerned joint meetings, although the Procedure Committee accepted that in principle. I am sure that, eventually, there will be a Welsh Committee of some kind comprising Members of the House and of the Assembly with powers similar to that of the Select Committee, able to call for people and papers and to interrogate the Executive. That will result in a direct input into the Assembly from the House with its law-making processes. That is not an option in the short term, but I am pleased that the Government have decided to put the resolutions of the House on an ad hoc basis for joint meetings of the Select Committee, as it exists now, with Assembly Members. That is a good move forward.
One problem that I foresee, on which I would like the Minister to comment, concerns Standing Order No. 152, which is down for amendment next week. The amendment is minimalist in that the functions of the Welsh Office are to be described as the remaining functions of the Secretary of State for Wales, or the Wales Office, as I think it will be called.
I have reservations in terms of what the Select Committee needs to do. Given that the Welsh Office no longer exists, since May we have been operating reasonably successfully without any Standing Orders, although that situation obviously cannot continue. If the Government's amendment is accepted next week, the Select Committee may be put in the position of having to call the Secretary of State for Wales on policy matters relating to other legislation going through the House concerning other Department, such as the Home Office or the Department of Social Security, which pertain solely to Wales but which would not be a matter for inquiry by those Departments' Select Committees. They would be

619
unlikely to want to consider a piece of legislation in so far as it appertained to only one part of the UK and, moreover, one with devolved powers.
Therefore, the Select Committee has a role in considering legislation put through the House by other Departments and affecting Wales. The problem is that the Select Committee can insist only on the appearance of the Secretary of State for Wales. We can call other Ministers, but they do not have to come. I can foresee a situation where the Secretary of State for Wales will be bouncing to and fro between offices in Whitehall being briefed on issues that we want to discuss. That situation might be unsatisfactory if we want to discuss policies which are being made in other Departments.
I should be most grateful if the Minister would assure the House that the Government would expect Ministers in other Departments to appear before the Select Committee, if it had a good reason concerning policy matters for asking them to do so, so that they could be quizzed on legislation affecting Wales.
The Select Committee broadly welcomes the Government's acceptance of most of the Procedure Committee's report, and we shall do everything that we can to work constructively with the Assembly and to make the government of Wales in devolved matters work as well as possible with this place.
3.18 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The procedural consequences for this House of the devolution settlements were given less consideration during the passage of the legislation than they perhaps merited. They touch on sensitive questions concerning the relationships of the different parts of the United Kingdom to each other and on the continuing authority of the House.
However, the caution that has been displayed by the Select Committee in its report seems appropriate because the different institutions in Wales and Scotland, legislative and executive, are evolving, and it is appropriate that consultation should take place between the different affected bodies before we set in concrete procedures that could be irritating to parties in different parts of the country.
Although the Committee recommends an evolutionary approach, in some respects it made rather radical suggestions. As I disagree with its suggestions in respect of legislation and the role of Select Committees and Grand Committees in Scotland in particular, I shall spend a little more time on that than on many of the other matters on which the House would be sensible to accept its recommendations.
The general view expressed by the Procedure Committee that we should try to get to know each other better—I am putting this in non-legal terms—is extremely wise. It is also right that we should recognise, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) did, that there are contradictions in the Government's attitude as expressed in the concordat, as compared with their response to the Committee's report—in particular with regard to the functioning of Question Time.
As a general principle, it is right that the House and the devolved Assemblies should be broadly free to discuss and raise such matters as they think appropriate without
620
let or hindrance and without a prickly, legalistic sense of where the lines have been drawn legislatively. It would create great artificialities if we were to restrain ourselves in our debates. The fact that something is the responsibility of a devolved Assembly is no reason for the subject matter not to be considered in debate here. That raises certain problems of ministerial accountability and responsibility: the broad principle that Ministers should not be called to answer for matters for which they are not accountable is without doubt correct but the House is a forum in which we debate matters that go far beyond the responsibility of individual Ministers. Public policy consists not only of those matters for which Ministers are answerable in the House.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not know whether he was present during the farce that was Welsh questions post-devolution, but does he accept that UK taxpayers' money is being spent throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and that I, as a UK Member of Parliament, should have a right to question the Secretary of State for Wales about how that money is being spent in Wales, even though he may not be directly accountable for the specifics of how it is spent?
Mr. Maclennan: That goes rather further than I was seeking to go. It is right that the House and Members here should have the responsibility of asking Ministers questions about matters of which they have knowledge and in respect of which they are empowered by the parent legislation to require the devolved Administrations to provide information. That is covered by one of the specific recommendations of the Procedure Committee. However, I hope that the lines on questioning are not drawn so tightly that they artificially exclude the general discussion of the affairs of territories—of nations—to which powers have been devolved. So far as it is possible to raise those matters without implying ministerial responsibility, they should be so permitted.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: It is not so much the questions as the answers that are the problem. It would be a bold Secretary of State who provided an answer to a question relating to a devolved matter, because that would be likely to queer his pitch in respect of relations with a devolved Administration.
Mr. Maclennan: This is a matter of questions, because questions will not be permitted—tabling them will not even be allowed—if they relate to matters for which the Minister to whom they are directed has no responsibility.
Dr. Reid: I very much concur with the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks and it might be better if Opposition Front Benchers, rather than looking only at the last Welsh Question Time, considered the previous Scottish questions, at which there was a wide-ranging and balanced question and answer session covering 17 topics of interest to the people of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about balance and suggesting that we can discuss anything, as Members of the Scottish Parliament are able to do, but we ought to strike a balance

621
on the rights and responsibilities of each other's territory in terms of legislation and not abuse that trust. As he says, this is a matter of achieving a balanced partnership.
Mr. Maclennan: I am obliged to the Secretary of State, particularly in the light of what I am about to say about his office and certain other matters on which, as he knows, my party is at odds with the Government.
Turning from those general expressions of principle to some of the particular issues to which the report alludes, let me say that the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that the devolution settlement—although one that has to be tried and used to the best of our ability to make it work—is flawed and imperfect. It is certainly not one that we would envisage having a lasting shape. We want steady progress towards the achievement of a federal United Kingdom in which there is not uniformity of devolution, but devolution reflecting the aspirations of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, and a settlement under which the United Kingdom Parliament relates to the Parliaments and Assemblies of the nations and regions as a federal Parliament relates to the second-tier Assemblies in existing federations in other countries.
It is fair to say that we have come nearer to achieving that ideal in the Scottish context than in Wales. Partly because of that, my remarks necessarily focus on Scotland, for the Government's thinking—and, indeed, some of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee—fails properly to recognise that, whether they like it or not, the Scottish settlement is quasi-federal. The legislative authority and the administrative powers of the Scottish Executive are substantial and the matters reserved to the House are essentially of United Kingdom interest. The consequence of that for our procedures is that it is at least artificial, and possibly a source of friction, to retain the operations of the Scottish Grand Committee at this time.
I asked the Leader of the House in what circumstances she envisaged it might be advantageous to use the Grand Committee. She certainly did not give me any such example, although she was perhaps looking for one before she replied. The reality is that the Scottish Grand Committee is now supererogatory in its operations and should not exist in the future. Perception is extremely important in these matters, and it is seen as—
Mr. Browne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclennan: When I have finished this sentence. The Scottish Grand Committee will be at risk if it meets and it will have great difficulty not only in excluding devolved matters from discussion—accepting the view of the Procedure Committee, we should tread carefully so that we do not undo the work of devolution—but in not giving rise to considerable criticism in Scotland of our second-guessing the work of those institutions to which we have given direct responsibility.
Mr. Browne: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be possible for the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss, for example, news broadcasting in Scotland, the impact of petrol taxation in rural Scotland—doubtless a matter that is close to the right hon. Gentleman's heart—welfare to work in Scotland and the new deal? I did not
622
make those up; they come from the Scottish National party evidence to the Procedure Committee, and the SNP in turn got them from the previous agenda of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs since 1997. It is not difficult to find examples.
Mr. Maclennan: Those are important matters, but they are reserved matters. They are reserved for a good reason: because they have United Kingdom dimensions. It is not sensible to discuss matters that have a UK dimension—the peculiar burdens of the taxation of petrol in remote rural parts of the country are felt in Cornwall as they are in Scotland—but it is perfectly appropriate to discuss them in UK Committees of this Parliament and of this House. It is from those debates that consequences will flow.
The Scottish Grand Committee is a notoriously impotent body, which has for many years been subject to criticism on that account. Select Committees, which make recommendations following examination, are much more likely to elicit Government answers, and it would be very much in the interests of the Scots that matters of UK importance, such as the ones that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, should be handled in that way.
Mr. Swinney: The right hon. Gentleman's experience of the House, and of the Scottish Grand Committee, predates mine. Before the general election at which I joined the House, a host of what could be described as UK Ministers appeared before the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss various issues that could now be described as "reserved matters". Was there any purpose to any of those discussions, and did they achieve anything other than obliterating the Conservative party? If the Labour Government insist on going down that route, it may happen to them as well.
Mr. Maclennan: I have already made the general point that the Scottish Grand Committee was a talking shop that delivered little, and was perceived as such in Scotland. This is an opportunity to wrap it up and to recognise that second guessing the work of the institutions to which we have devolved power is not an appropriate thing for this Parliament to do.
Mr. John Maxton: As the evidence will show, I share some of the views that the right hon. Gentleman is expressing about the Scottish Grand Committee. What I do not understand is the intervention by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney). The evidence submitted to the Committee by the Scottish National party says that the Grand Committee
"remains an appropriate forum for the debate of reserved matters from a distinctly Scottish perspective … We therefore propose that it continue on a trial basis for the time being."
I therefore do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
Mr. Maclennan: I am afraid that I share the hon. Gentleman's doubts about the wisdom of those recommendations. We can only speculate about the SNP's motivation.
The second question that arises is whether there should be a territorial Select Committee structure. It is much more sensible if topics addressed by Select Committees

623
covering Scottish matters are handled within the United Kingdom context and addressed by those departmental Committees whose Ministers have prime responsibility for the issues under discussion. From time to time, the Scots may have a particular angle on the subject, the Government may hold a different view and the Secretary of State may be following a different policy. If so, it should be open to those Select Committees to invite the Scottish Secretary to give separate independent evidence.
The point has been made that the territoriality of the Scottish Committee is what gives it its clout. I do not believe that that is so.
Mr. Swayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Maclennan: Let me finish the point first.
What gives those Committees clout is the fact that Ministers with prime responsibility for the subject in question appear before them. The Secretary of State for Scotland still has his finger in a lot of pies, but he does not have prime responsibility for dealing with petrol prices in remote rural areas or broadcasting in Scotland. Such matters are best handled by the departmental Minister who is responsible. If the Secretary of State wants to stick his finger in the pie with the Committee, that can doubtless be arranged.
It is time we stopped regarding the territorial Committees as talking shops suitable for sending little press releases to local newspapers, when what we really want is to influence the Government's policies.
Mr. Browne: Can the right hon. Gentleman point to the place in the Procedure Committee report where I can find evidence from his party to that effect? Did any member of his party attempt, on behalf of the party, to persuade the Procedure Committee that the Scottish Affairs Committee should be treated in that way?
Mr. Maclennan: My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) gave individual and very powerful evidence, with which I totally agree. Indeed, I would have singled her out for special attention even if the hon. Gentleman had not given me the opportunity to do so.
On the final point about legislative proposals, I agree with the Government's conclusion that it would be inappropriate to have a system of Second Reading Committees for Bills that are territorially limited to England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales. I fail to understand the reasoning behind the Procedure Committee's recommendations. It is certainly not spelled out.
The Government's case is not greatly strengthened by their saying that there would be a problem of accommodation for the English Second Reading Committee, which would have 546 members. The principle must be that matters that the House is debating are of United Kingdom interest. The principle is that, where devolution has occurred and matters have been reserved to this House, and the House is legislating on them, all members of this House should be treated alike in participating in those debates and seeking to shape the legislation.
624
The position in Wales in distinctly anomalous and, in many ways, the Committee has done a good job in handling the Welsh issue. The Scottish position, however, seems clear: reserved matters should be debated by Scots as of right, along with all other members of the House. The problems that arise in respect of England may be de minimis problems because, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) advised the Committee, it is hard to put one's finger on a purely English piece of legislation. One senses that those who are trying to stir up this issue are doing so not because there is a major constitutional problem but for political reasons of their own.
I hope that some of the Committee's other recommendations, including the establishment of a Constitutional Affairs Committee to consider the relationship between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, will be implemented with the support of the House. We are watching and participating in an unrolling, developing situation that has great oddities. It should be approached not in an ad hoc, pragmatic way, but with some regard to what the Committee called principles of consistency. I hope that that approach will inform future changes in the procedures of the House.
3.41 pm
Mr. Douglas Alexander: I shall begin by responding to the remarks of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), before turning to two specific recommendations in the Committee's report. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by quoting the general principles that informed the Committee's deliberations, as set out its report. In paragraph 5, the third principle stipulates that
"it is legitimate for all Members of the United Kingdom Parliament to have an interest in matters which remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament; however Members from an area to which powers have been devolved will have a particular interest in business affecting that area".
Surely that principle is merely a restatement of the broad understanding that this is a United Kingdom Parliament, and that all of its Members are UK MPs. There are not, and must not be, two classes of MP in this House.
The so-called West Lothian question—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and which was echoed by some of the Committee's recommendations, especially those for a new Standing Committee reflecting area representations—questions why Scottish Members are able to legislate on matters that affect English constituencies, whereas English MPs cannot legislate on exclusively Scottish issues devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I contend that the question is based on a fallacy concerning the role of elected Members of this House.
In support of that contention, I owe a debt of gratitude to the writings of the former Member for Berwick and East Lothian, Professor John P. Mackintosh, who, when this issue was first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), examined the realities of the operation of the House. Mackintosh's critique rested on the observation, which still holds true today, that, in the majority of cases, the legislation affecting, for example, education in West Bromwich is initiated not by individual Members of the House, Scottish or otherwise, but by the Executive.

625
In the words of de Smith and Brazier—and more recent constitutional authorities—the House gives the Government their "legitimate foundation". The invitation to form that Executive is extended to the Member of the House who is judged most capable of commanding a majority of MPs. That majority is a majority of all the Members of the UK Parliament as a collective entity, including representatives from every part of the United Kingdom. To undermine that fundamental principle, and to reduce the status of any individual group of MPs, would be to deny the reality of our country as a multinational state and the status of the House as a UK Parliament. That is why the observations to the Centre for Policy Studies, of the Leader of the Opposition referred to by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, are misplaced and contrary to the third principle in the report.
In that speech, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the distant drumbeats of English nationalism. He failed to mention the fact that he and his Front-Bench colleagues are themselves now beating that drum. They may try to become once again a one-nation party, but they are revealing their hand: that one nation is little England.
It again falls to the Labour party and the Government to defend devolution from it opponents south and north of the border. That informs the Government's response to the Committee's report.
The Committee recommended that, after devolution, the range and detail of questions to be put to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales should be reduced to matters relating to their ministerial responsibilities: that was stated in paragraph 8. That rejection of the evolutionary approach was echoed in the statement made by Madam Speaker on 12 July 1999, Official Report, columns 21-22, in advance of today's debate. The broad terms of that statement made it clear that, if matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament or to the Welsh Assembly, questions on the detail of policy or expenditure would not be deemed in order.
Although Madam Speaker made it clear that the terms of her ruling would be reviewed in light of the operation of the rules and of today's debate, I for one believe that there is no difficulty with that approach. However, I enter an important caveat. This ruling reflects the fact that Scottish devolution is a two-Parliament solution. It also reflects the Committee's finding that, in passing the legislation that underlies devolution, Parliament has agreed that certain powers and responsibilities should pass from this House to devolved legislatures, and that parliamentary procedures and customs should not be called in aid to undermine that decision.
The Scottish Nationalists and the Conservative party rejected, and sought election in opposition to, that reformed constitutional architecture, but the two-Parliament solution was the goal of the Labour party. For the two Parliaments to work harmoniously, there must be a sharing of powers and responsibility. For the devolutionary settlement to succeed, there must be an exercise of responsibility by this House and a recognition of responsibilities by Members of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. That is why I welcome the terms of the memorandum of understanding, especially paragraph 15, which states that the Executive in Edinburgh will encourage Members of the Scottish Parliament to keep in mind the responsibilities of the UK Parliament as well as their own.
626
Although it would be inappropriate and contrary to the spirit of devolution for the House to intrude on the areas of responsibility that have been devolved by the Scotland Act 1998, it would be equally inappropriate, and contrary to the spirit of devolution, for the Parliament in Edinburgh to intrude on areas of responsibility that are not devolved.
I do not believe that the voters of Scotland would look favourably on parties or representatives who have been charged with serious responsibilities, such as improving the health, education, housing and local services of the people of Scotland, who chose to waste their time on matters for which they did not have responsibility.
The Committee recommended that the provision allowing the Speaker to certify that Bills relate exclusively to Scotland should be transferred to a new Standing Order and adapted so that the Speaker can certify that a Bill relates exclusively to one of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. It further recommended that Bills that relate to such a constituent part could be transferred to a new Standing Committee containing at least 16 Members from the area concerned. It is not clear to me that that change would benefit the House or its work. The practice of certifying Scottish Bills has historically been for the purpose of treating them in a different way from other Bills. Now that devolution is in place, the frequency of such Bills will undoubtedly diminish. It remains the case that the issue of whether any Bill is taken on the Floor of the House or in a Second Reading Committee is determined by the size and content of that Bill, rather than its territorial scope.
Mr. Grieve: I note that the hon. Gentleman has not touched on the question whether the Grand Committees should remain. I was puzzled that he did not do so, because, in the earlier part of his speech, he said that the essential issue was that all those of us who remained in this House were dealing with reserved matters on an equal basis. How does that square with keeping a Grand Committee to allow a section of Members of Parliament to discuss reserved matters when other MPs cannot be present?
Mr. Alexander: The creation of regional Standing Committees is the most obvious answer. Of course Members of the House have equal status, but some matters are dealt with on a regional basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) outlined some clear areas that were previously the work of the Scottish Grand Committee which will remain of profound concern to his constituents and to mine.
Mr. Swinney: The hon. Gentleman talked about the principles that underpinned the Procedure Committee's report. Has he a particular view on the ranking of those principles? Does the first one have greater status than the second, third or fourth?
Mr. Alexander: Anyone familiar with recent electoral politics in Scotland will understand if I happily pass by on the other side and do not take up the hon. Gentleman's invitation to state a second choice.
The report and today's debate offer a real prospect for partnership between the two Parliaments, if we are minded to work in that direction. I believe that we have the support not only of constituents who voted for that

627
approach on 1 May 1997 but of those who did so on 11 September 1997. All hon. Members—whether they opposed devolution for years, whether they are from north or south of the border, and regardless of their party—have an obligation to make devolution work in the interests not only of Scottish constituents but of constituents in every part of the United Kingdom.
3.50 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I speak as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, but also as Member of Parliament for Macclesfield. As Member of Parliament for Macclesfield, I think that most of my colleagues on both sides of the House will be well aware of my personal feelings about devolution; but wearing my hat as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I recognise that this House of Commons has decided that devolution should take place, and now that that decision has been made, I—no less than any of my colleagues on the Committee—hope that devolution will be a success.
I must say that I am somewhat concerned—I go no further than that—about the way in which the debate has been structured. Neither I, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, nor members of my Committee have featured in a debate that appears to have almost deteriorated into a campaign involving a dispute between those who are pro-devolution, those who are anti-devolution, Labour, Liberal—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising the Chair.
Mr. Winterton: I am expressing concern, not criticism, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I chose the word "concerned". This is a debate about the House of Commons, and party politics should not enter into it. The House of Commons is deciding how it should alter its procedures in the light of what has happened in respect of the passing of powers to Scotland, to Wales and perhaps, in due course, to Northern Ireland.
Since the Committee published its report in May, devolution has taken place. We know that; we have experienced it. The Government have issued—somewhat late in the day—concordats relating to how the devolved Executives and the United Kingdom Government will work together. I welcome the fact that, at long last, those documents have been published: in my view and that of my Committee, they are at least a starting point for the establishment of a framework enabling the Governments within the United Kingdom to work together, and to do so effectively.
I welcome the Secretary of State for Scotland to the debate. I am sad that the Leader of the House can no longer be with us, but she apologised to me personally. She has a reason for not being here, which I fully accept, as I know the House would.
There is a memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom Government, Scottish Ministers and the Cabinet of the Assembly for Wales. It clearly comes from the same stable as the rest of the Government's thinking. In my view and that of my Committee, it is founded primarily on the assumption that the two sides will work together sensibly. The Secretary of State for Scotland has
628
made that point many times. It is indeed useful to have a basic structure in place, but I genuinely wonder how robust the concordats will prove to be when severe pressure is exerted on them. I look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State has to say when he winds up the debate.
The detail of the concordats raises a number of questions in my mind. I find it alarming that the Government either have not considered these matters or have chosen to gloss over them. One of the most serious issues is the fact that the concordat on international relations apparently allows Ministers of the Scottish Parliament, or of the Welsh Assembly, to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom at foreign summits. Whether or not such representation occurs with the consent of the Foreign Office is not the issue. I ask, how could a politician who is not a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament represent the United Kingdom? To whom would he or she be accountable? What right would this House have to question him or her on the meeting at which he or she represented the United Kingdom? It would clearly be a constitutional outrage if such a thing ever came to pass.
Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Winterton: I will in a moment.
Personally, I am not convinced that it is appropriate for representatives of devolved Administrations to take the lead on behalf of the United Kingdom in European Union negotiations; but I fear that only time will tell whether I am right, and whether this could prove to be a source of resentment.
Does the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) still wish to intervene?
Mr. Maclennan: No.
Mr. Winterton: I have obviously satisfied him.
The concordats provide for tiered levels of contact between Ministers and officials of the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Executives, and for a flow of information; but in my view and that of the Committee, many practical issues have not been considered. For example, the concordats are littered with references to the confidential exchange of "relevant" information, but who decides what is relevant, and what recourse has one side if it feels that it has not received important information?
On the other hand, the concordat on financial assistance to industry seems to me to cut across the whole devolutionary principle by requiring all the Governments to supply information about the financial packages that they are putting together in an attempt to woo potential inward investors. Again, I must ask the Secretary of State whether this will be a stable, on-going, workable arrangement. Clearly, there must be some doubt about that.
Mr. Swinney: In his capacity as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, would the hon. Gentleman care to reflect on what I think will be the difficulties with regard to parliamentary scrutiny posed by the discussions that take place under the concordats? Many issues relating to dispute resolution will be handled by a joint ministerial

629
committee whose minutes will not be published. How will this House, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly be able to guarantee effective scrutiny?
Mr. Winterton: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer, although the Secretary of State for Scotland may well be able to do so on behalf of the Government. I shall be dealing with issues that have already been touched on—perhaps indirectly including the issue that the hon. Gentleman has identified—later in my speech; but there is clearly a problem. I know that politicians north of the border are deeply concerned, because, in their eyes, this understanding and the way in which it will work depend on the diktat of Westminster, and there will be no real input from north of the border. Only time will tell, but it is a question to which the Secretary of State—
Dr. Reid rose—
Mr. Winterton: I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
The answer is simple. All Ministers in the House of Commons are accountable to the House, and all Ministers in the Scottish Parliament are accountable to the Scottish Parliament. The fact that minutes of any particular meeting may or may not be made available—in the case of any number of meetings, here and in the Scottish Parliament, minutes are not made available instantaneously, if ever—does not mean that Ministers are not accountable for them. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the real motive behind most questions posed by members of the Scottish National party is not to create concord by means of the concordats, but to create discord and divorce between the Parliaments.
Mr. Winterton: I am sure that the House is grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the question posed by the Scottish National party; but I am not wearing a party political hat, and I therefore cannot be expected to comment on his observation. I am here in the hope of representing—as I have so many times in the past—what my Committee and I hope is the best interest of the House of Commons.
Let me say, in a conciliatory way, that I know the Government favoured an evolutionary approach in the drafting of the concordats. I do not think, however, that the Government had much choice: I do not think that they could do other than feel their way gingerly through the constitutional minefield that they had created. Let me tell the Secretary of State, and the House as a whole, that the Procedure Committee, too, has decided on an evolutionary approach to the matters within its remit.
Huge constitutional issues remain unresolved, however. The concordats are a start. The Procedure Committee's recommendations are also a start, but they will not be enough in themselves; perhaps the speech by the Leader of the House showed that. I am grateful to her for being reasonably flexible. Although I have some criticism of her and of the answers that the Government have provided to our report, on many issues, she has left the door open for action and for changes to Standing Orders and procedures of the House. Some serious thinking has to be done by everyone who wishes our Union to be strong and stable in future.
630
I welcome the Government reply to our report, although with some reservations. The memorandum of understanding states—it is worth reading it out—
"The United Kingdom Parliament retains the absolute right to debate, enquire into or make representations about devolved matters. It is ultimately for Parliament to decide what use to make of that power, but the UK Government will encourage the UK Parliament to bear in mind the primary responsibility of devolved legislatures and administrations in these fields and to recognise that it is a consequence of Parliament's decision to devolve certain matters that Parliament itself will in future be more restricted in its field of operation."
I could not agree more. That chimes with the first of the guiding principles that the Procedure Committee identified in discussing devolution, a principle with which the Government agree:
"In passing the legislation which underlies devolution, Parliament has agreed that certain powers and responsibilities should pass from it to the devolved legislatures; parliamentary procedure or custom should not be called in aid to undermine that decision."
The Government are right that it is for the House, not the Government, to determine its own procedures, but the House can do that only if the Government in due course table the proposals for procedural change that would allow it to do so. In its report, the Committee identified several procedural changes that should be made in response to devolution. I pay tribute to all members of the Committee who played an important role in the inquiry and the report that we produced, to those who came before us as individuals or as Committee Chairmen to give evidence and, of course, to the staff of our Committee.
Implementing devolution without changing the procedures of the House is like giving a person one's wallet but keeping a string of elastic attached to it: he has the wallet in his hand, but if he wants to use it to make a purchase that one disapproves of, one tug and the two are locked in conflict.
We have decided to hand over powers. Let us, then, do it properly and accept that the House will have to curtail some of its activities in consequence of Parliament's decision. It would be unfair—I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who is a distinguished member of our Committee, agrees with my sentiments—to the devolved legislatures not to do just that.
The Government have replied to our report and have indicated that they wish to retain the Grand Committees. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the Government's mind about Grand Committees and the Procedure Committee's recommendation. The Procedure Committee gave the matter careful consideration. We suggested not abolishing the Grand Committees, which would close the option for all time, but suspending them for the period of the experiment in Westminster Hall to find out whether there was an on-going purpose for the Grand Committees. My own view is that they should go, but in its wisdom the Committee rightly said that, in the interim, while we learn a bit more about devolution, they should be suspended.
The matter that I am most clear about is that, once devolution is achieved, there is no place in the House of Commons for Grand Committees—which, I remind the House and those who perhaps have come to the House only in recent times—were set up as substitutes for devolution.
I understand that the Government do not wish to crowd rewarding debates out of sittings in Westminster Hall, but that is to miss the point. The Grand Committees will be

631
concerned with reserved matters, or perhaps with devolved ones. The argument against debating devolved matters in the Grand Committees is surely obvious to the House. The temptation in those Committees to second-guess devolved legislatures will be considerable.
We must recognise that, following the Scotland Act 1998, the House is now concerned with reserved matters. Reserved matters are reserved for good reason: as has been said, they pertain to the United Kingdom as a whole. The Procedure Committee accepts that there may be a need for debates on reserved matters as they pertain to Scotland or Wales and that such debates may be of particular interest to Scottish or Welsh Members, but all Members—I repeat, all Members—of the House of Commons potentially have an interest in such matters; the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross made that very point. We need to know how United Kingdom policies work throughout the United Kingdom. As has been pointed out, the Grand Committees, which are limited in their membership, are no longer an appropriate forum for such debates.
Sir Raymond Powell: On that very issue, as a Welsh Member who has been in the House for 20 years and regularly attended the Welsh Grand Committee, I can say that the purpose that it served was to allow Welsh Members to express opinions—it was very limited, but it was especially in connection with Wales.
I, too, have in the past served on the Committee appointing Members to serve on the House's Committees. Having read the list of the Members appointed, I cannot understand why, to my knowledge, not one Welsh Member served on the Procedure Committee, with the result that the views of Welsh Members were not expressed to the hon. Gentleman when the Procedure Committee was talking about the Welsh Grand Committee.
Mr. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for many years. I happen to have been here for 28 years, if we are making play of how long we have been here. We took evidence from the Welsh Grand Committee and from the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who chairs that Committee with great distinction. We also took evidence from the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, so those who come from the Principality contributed considerably to the evidence that we took for our report. The hon. Gentleman has, I believe, been a Whip of his party. It is not up to me as Chairman to dictate who is appointed to my Committee. Sadly, that is done through the usual channels—that dark hole that many people refer to from time to time.
Towards the end of our inquiry, we were fortunate to have appointed to our Committee a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scotland, but it took me quite a lot of effort and representation behind the scenes to get a Member who represents a very important part of the Union of the United Kingdom, north of Hadrian's wall, on our Committee. If there was any implied criticism of the Committee or me as Chairman, it was misdirected and off target. It does not lie with me to decide who serves on my Committee. That is no cause for criticism of the Chair.
In shadowing the Secretaries of State, the territorial Committees will inevitably touch on the work of many, if not all, the United Kingdom Departments. Moreover, the
632
territorial Committees will inevitably have much contact with the devolved legislatures. That is, as hon. Members have said, already the case, and I hope that it will continue to be so.
Surely it would be better to appoint freestanding Committees now. That would abandon the pretence that the Committees should concentrate on "expenditure and administration", when much of that responsibility in relation to Scotland and Wales has been devolved. It would also make future amendments to the Committees' terms of reference very much more simple. I am sure that, eventually, relations between Westminster and the devolved legislatures will necessitate an amendment to the territorial Committees for Wales and Scotland, and possibly Northern Ireland.
Our report deals with one matter that may soon become very pressing: co-operation between Westminster and the devolved legislatures. The Government seem unaware of the real difficulties in formal co-operation, saying that—like me—they hope that
"the House will not take too restrictive a view of its procedures"
in such relations with the devolved countries of the United Kingdom. However, the problems arise from statute, not from procedure.
In this House, we operate under the protection of parliamentary privilege and the privilege of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. We have a near-complete protection—it is so good that we are hardly aware of it. Our speeches in debates, our proceedings in Select Committees and the documents prepared for those Committees are all protected. Our colleagues in the devolved legislatures have no such complete privilege. That technical subject is dealt with in our report. Now, I shall merely point out that, although it would be possible to do much by informal agreement, it is also possible that Committees will find that formal co-operation is much more satisfactory.
I tell the Scottish Secretary that I would be a bit queasy and uneasy about Committees informally exchanging papers with bodies outside the House—they need the authority of Standing Orders to exchange papers with one another—if the House had not previously agreed to the principle of such changes.
I understand why the Government have not yet proceeded with some Standing Order changes. In our report, we note that it is not for Westminster to prescribe the nature of the relationship with devolved bodies. As the Scottish Secretary has said, such relationships must evolve, and both sides will have an influence on their evolution. There are, however, legal questions to be addressed, and I trust that the Leader of the House and the Scottish Secretary will recognise that, in time, there may have to be a resolution of the House, and meaningful Standing Order changes, to comply with the recommendations of our report.
We shall have to change our procedures if we are to be fair to Wales. We shall have to change our procedures if we are to be fair to Scotland. We shall have to change also if we are to be fair to England. As has been said in the debate, we have enacted a variable-geometry devolution, and each part of the United Kingdom has its own system and powers. Scotland and Wales—and eventually, I hope, also Northern Ireland—will have powers to determine how they, as constituent parts of the Union, should be administered. However, the largest and

633
most popular country in the United Kingdom has no such power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Populous."] No, popular, in respect of numbers. I do not mean populous or population, but the country in the United Kingdom that is most popular, because of its numbers.
When the Procedure Committee visited the Basque country in Spain to see how the Spanish system was developing, our hosts were in no doubt—Committee colleagues took part in the debate, and can confirm what was said—that the answer to the West Lothian question was an English Parliament. Occasionally, a small group of people demonstrates in Parliament square, demanding just that—an English Parliament. Some hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that that may well be the answer.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Winterton: I shall give way, and then establish my position and that of the Committee.
Mrs. Fyfe: Although there may be some expressions of a backlash against devolution outside the House, has the hon. Gentleman noticed that, today, such a backlash has not been evident in the Chamber? Most hon. Members in this debate represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and the few English Members here do not seem to have seen the debate as an opportunity of expressing opposition to the consequences of devolution. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way in which some of the media has attempted to stir up opposition to devolution has been very misguided?
Mr. Winterton: I shall allow hon. Members to draw their own conclusions on that matter and state my own position—which is that I do not support the cause of an English Parliament. Such an institution would weaken the Union. It would be too powerful and would steamroller the constituent parts. Moreover, I believe that it is harmful and artificial for nations to define themselves—and regard their national interests—as opposed to each other: the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish must work together, both in Europe and in the world as a whole. Over the years, surely, the history of the United Kingdom has been one of intermarriage, mobility and flexibility.
I do not want to witness the further fragmentation—
Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Winterton: No, I shall not. The hon. Gentleman has spoken frequently.
Mr. Alexander rose—
Mr. Winterton: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) either.
I do not want to witness the further fragmentation of the Union of the United Kingdom by the introduction of regional governments or assemblies. Regionalism, in my view, does not have a place in our country's history and traditions, and I most certainly hope that it will not have a place in the future of the United Kingdom. We must, however, find ways of being fair to England. The devolution settlement that we now have means that
634
Westminster Members—be they English, Scottish or Welsh—should not interfere in matters that are the responsibility of the devolved legislatures. We should recognise that, and I agree with it. However, I go further.
I believe—I think that this will be welcomed by many who support the Welsh national party, the Scottish National party and other national parties—that, although in principle Westminster retains the right to legislate on devolved matters, we should not exercise that right unless we are requested to do so. However, under that very settlement, Scottish Members of the United Kingdom Parliament may find themselves holding the balance of power when legislation dealing with England and Wales, or even England alone, is before the House of Commons, even when the legislation is on matters whose equivalents are devolved to Scotland or within the power of the National Assembly for Wales.
In other words, my esteemed colleague on the Committee, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, for example, may not be able to vote on the structure of local government in Scotland, whereas he may cast the crucial vote that determines the structure of local government in England. I say quite openly that surely that would not be fair.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman remember chairing the Standing Committee's proceedings on the Welsh Language Act 1993, when he cast his vote against an amendment that I tabled on Welsh jury trials?
Mr. Winterton: I do indeed. I also remember that, on every occasion, I attempted to introduce sittings that I was chairing in the Welsh language. I tell the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great affection, regard and respect, that as he knows—and as the Deputy Speaker would be very quick to tell the House, if he were asked—as a Committee Chairman, I operate in accordance with precedent. Regardless of whether I liked the hon. Gentleman's amendment, I had to vote as I did, in accordance with precedent.
Mr. Alexander rose—
Mr. Winterton: The hon. Member for Paisley, South is looking pregnant. Would he like to intervene?
Mr. Alexander: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the gracious manner in which he gave way. Will he confirm that there has never been an occasion when the Conservative party has had a majority in England and Wales while Labour has commanded a majority in the House throughout the United Kingdom? My understanding is that at no point during this century has that been the case. I welcome his concession of rejecting an English Parliament. Other than the physical architecture, what is the difference between an English Parliament and the proposals advanced by Conservative Front Benchers—of English votes for English laws?
Mr. Winterton: I am not sure that I can give an answer off the cuff, although in the previous Parliament when the

635
Government's majority came down to one, the Scots and the Welsh played a major role in deciding what the Government could do.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: And the Unionists.
Mr. Winterton: As Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I am looking at how the procedures of the House are influenced by the devolution that has taken place. I do not wish to trade across the Floor of the House statistics relating to what the position might have been under a particular Government and what influence the Welsh Members, Scottish Members or, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) says from a sedentary position, Northern Ireland Members may have had.
It is no solution to say that the number of Scottish seats will soon be reduced and that it is extremely unlikely that the Scots will hold the balance of power as they did in the 1974 Parliament. I was there, although I was not very senior or very experienced. As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said when the Scottish Affairs Committee gave evidence to our Committee—I paraphrase him—such matters are best dealt with before there is danger of conflict, when it is possible to determine them without rancour. Those were very wise words.
Debate is not a problem. We are a United Kingdom Parliament, even on matters that are of more concern to one part than another. We can learn from one another. That is why the Grand Committees should go. The English way of doing things may not be the best, hard though it is for me to say that, but this House is not just about debate—it is about taking decisions. That is very important. The procedures of the House must be seen to be fair on that. It is not just a matter of fairness to England. When we take decisions that affect a specific part of the United Kingdom, we need to have a system that gives Members from that area ample opportunity to have their say.
That brings me back to the points made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. In our report we suggest—tentatively, as one colleague on the Committee may well add if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that one way of giving Members from the region affected a say would be for Bills to be certified by Madam Speaker as relating exclusively to England, Wales, Scotland or, in due course one hopes, Northern Ireland. The normal presumption would be that such Bills would be debated in Committees containing a substantial proportion of Members from the area concerned. The Leader of the House seemed to feel that we were suggesting that all Members representing England would serve on such Committees. That is not the case. The Government would be able to override them, but if they did so it would be transparent and obvious to all. We do not pretend that that is the only solution or even the best that can be found, but I would be reassured to have some sign that the Government were also seeking solutions to the problems that I have outlined.
I am somewhat disappointed by the section of the Government's reply relating to legislation. In our report we made it clear that our proposals were tentative. We are
636
learning as we go into devolution. The Government have dealt with the detail of our proposal without addressing the concerns that underlie it. It could be argued that the gradual approach—it says that the future will be shaped in reaction to devolution rather than beginning by thinking about abstract concepts such as fairness—is an inherently English approach. It was Louis MacNeice—born in Belfast—who observed:
"They don't want any philosopher-Kings in England".
I am content to accept a devolution settlement that leaves room for negotiation and adjustment, but there needs to be some concept of fairness underlying the development.
The Scots may have resented the influence of England in the United Kingdom and felt that their aspirations were thwarted by English domination. Now there is a danger that the largest and most populated part of the Union will feel itself controlled by the devolved Administrations. The issue of whether beef on the bone is safe to eat is, as it were, but a taste of things to come.
I want devolution to be a success. I do not want to have to echo Dr. Johnson and say:
"Seeing England, madam, is only seeing a worse Scotland."
We need means for English Members to take those decisions that affect England alone. If we find such a mechanism now, we may avoid much unnecessary conflict in the future—and Parliament will be the better for it.
4.26 pm
Ms Jackie Lawrence: It is an honour yet again to follow the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). It is getting to be a habit, and I feel honoured to do so. I congratulate him on his speech, which demonstrates the service that he has done to the Select Committee system which seeks to put Parliament's interests above those of the party structure.
I have listened from the beginning of the debate with great interest. The opening comments of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) confirmed that the Opposition are painting themselves as a purely English party. That is how we have always perceived them in Wales. The people of Wales certainly recognised it in 1997, and those on the Conservative Front Bench seem to be recognising it, too. The debate is not about devolution but about the processes by which we make devolution work. However, far from defending the Union, the Conservatives' line contains an implicit threat of the break-up of the Union.
In his intervention, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) confirmed the separatist basis of his party's history by demonstrating his willingness to use the procedures of the House to further that separatist aim. It is a dreadful shame that he is no longer present, because I was hoping that he would come back on that point.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady says that the Conservative party is painting itself as a little England party. Does she think that it strengthens the Union or this Parliament that

637
Scottish Members of Parliament can vote on purely English matters, but cannot vote on the same issues for Scotland?
Ms Lawrence: I am here as a Welsh Member of Parliament to look at the issues relating to Wales and to comment on the stance of the Opposition in relation to the area that I represent.
Sir Paul Beresford: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
Ms Lawrence: No.
Only the Labour party has demonstrated by its actions that it is committed to the future of the Union, while ensuring through devolution that the decision-making process is closest to those whom it affects. We have delivered devolution, and we want to see devolution deliver.
As the first "victim" of the uncertainty surrounding the issue of questions, I was delighted that the report and the Government's response recommended that questions should not be so prescriptive as we had all feared initially. Similarly, the Grand Committee will have a role initially in Wales, as we need that forum to discuss matters such as the Budget for Wales.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Lawrence: No, I have already given way. I wish to make one particular point, which is fundamental to the Government's response and the report.
Paragraph 23 of the report concerns legislation. It states:
"We support the principles behind the Government statement on legislation and agree that the House should not legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the legislature concerned."
However, no reference is made in the response to the fact that the report goes on to say:
"There is a grey area, in that the Welsh Assembly does not have the power to pass primary legislation".
The failure to acknowledge that further statement by the Committee in relation to this grey area creates the potential for misunderstanding, leading to possible conflict in the future unless it is clarified here today.
The response goes on to compound the potential for misunderstanding, first, by not referring to the grey area, and then by changing the terminology in the response. The Government refer simply to collective "devolved administrations", appearing to accord them all the same rights. Wales does not have primary legislative powers but, as it has secondary powers, it is clearly a legislature and an Administration—hence the need to acknowledge the difference and to clarify the Government's definition of legislature and Administration in the context of the response.
If that is not done now, the way will be paved for considerable misunderstanding and conflict between Westminster and the National Assembly for Wales. I speak as someone who wholeheartedly supports the principles of devolution. It is important to make that point, because I want the system to work and to work well on behalf of the people of Wales.
638
The Assembly offers the people of Wales the opportunity to set their own priorities within Wales in a way that they have never done before. That is to be welcomed and built upon. To do that, it is vital that the potential for misunderstanding is dealt with now—as the hon. Member for Macclesfield said consistently throughout his excellent speech.
Assembly Members, working with colleagues at Westminster, should be able to set those priorities in their areas of responsibility in the certain knowledge of the parameters of their particular legislature's responsibilities and the precise remit of each body as the new National Assembly for Wales beds down and consolidates its role in Wales.
In the response to the report, the word "consent" is quoted by the Government. In the report, that is qualified by an explanation of the framework within which Scotland has responsibility for primary legislation, based on the role of the Sewel convention. That explanation is not confirmed in the response, in that it does not define the difference between Scotland and Wales, but changes the terminology to refer simply to "devolved administrations". If that point is not clarified, the use of the word "consent", as outlined in the response, would effectively transfer much more power to the Assembly, allowing it to veto the role of Westminster. It could effectively undermine Westminster's powers over primary legislation in relation to Wales.
In the case of Wales, one would expect consultation with the Assembly legislature and the Administration. That is right and proper, and reflects the debates that took place here during consideration of the Government of Wales Act 1998. Any failure to make the distinction between consent and consultation in the case of Wales could result in conflict.
I believe that it is important that we acknowledge here today that while consultation, co-operation and partnership are not just desirable but essential—and to be welcomed and encouraged—it must be made clear that there is no doubt that primary legislation in relation to Wales is completely at the discretion of the UK Parliament.
4.36 pm
Mr. John Swinney: I congratulate the Select Committee on Procedure on its fourth report. During Agriculture questions earlier today, the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), said that this House was at its most effective when it was at its most courteous. The language of the Committee's report is very courteous and sensitive, and allows the House to reflect on how the debate should move on after the legislative changes associated with the Scotland and the Government of Wales Acts 1998.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield caused some consternation among Scottish Labour Members when he referred to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) as the Member from Scotland. He created—inadvertently, I assume—the sense that the number of Scottish Members was to be reduced from 72 to one, and that all power was to be vested in the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South. That would result in a short-lived experience for the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) who has joined us recently, and whom

639
I congratulate on his election victory in late September. I am sure that that will not be the next step of the Procedure Committee, but it may be a future recommendation that the number of Scottish Members be reduced from 72 to one, and that a lifetime appointment be made for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South to carry out that task.
We have heard it said that some people have an interest in making devolution work and others do not. I want to make it clear to the House once again that my objective and that of my party is to make devolution work. I believe that Scotland will be able to achieve the fundamental aim of my party—Scottish independence—only if the Scottish people see the Scottish Parliament being successful and effective. The Scottish people could then come to the conclusion that, having made a success of control over a limited but important number of areas of policy within the Scottish Parliament, they would be capable of controlling all the affairs of Scotland and of representing Scotland in Europe effectively as an equal member of the European Union. That is our aspiration.
When I raise with the hon. Member for Macclesfield my concerns about the memorandum of understanding and the role of the Joint Ministerial Committee, it is not to be unhelpful but to ask how we are to exercise true and transparent parliamentary scrutiny if we are not in possession of the information that is appropriate to allow us to arrive at decisions.
Mr. Alexander: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for his kind remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), to whose election campaign the hon. Gentleman contributed so much. The hon. Gentleman has observed that there are limited but important matters dealt with in the Scottish Parliament, devolved in Holyrood. Will he give an undertaking to the House that his time in that Parliament—and the time of his fellow representatives of the Scottish National party—will be used to deal with those specific, limited but important powers, such as education, housing and health, rather than using the Parliament to try to discuss issues outwith the competence of the Parliament, which are reserved here at Westminster?
Mr. Swinney: An important point established during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998 was the right of the Scottish Parliament to debate issues that it considers appropriate. That point was well made in the Chamber, so it should not be a surprise to the hon. Gentleman. My party will certainly ensure that the matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament are properly dealt with there. Some of the unease and tension among Labour Members is evidence of the effectiveness of the way in which we scrutinise the work of the Executive in the Scottish Parliament, although I accept that that Executive also involves Liberal Democrats, however uncomfortable they may feel at times.
It is important that we address the issues that are of concern to the people of Scotland. That is the rule of thumb that my party follows in the Scottish Parliament.
Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that he was asked? In view of what he said earlier, will
640
he give an assurance not only to the House but, more important, to the people of Scotland that he and his party will spend the bulk of their time in the Scottish Parliament dealing with issues that are within the competence of that Parliament—the issues that the Scottish people want to be dealt with in Scotland and that they pay him and the other Members of that Parliament to deal with—rather than, as is currently evidenced in the majority of the parliamentary questions that they table there, dealing with issues which are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament and which the Scottish people want to be dealt with in the United Kingdom Parliament?
Mr. Swinney: We will discuss the issues that are of relevance to the people of Scotland. I am interested to find that the Secretary of State is paying close attention to the questions tabled in the Scottish Parliament, but if I were to go much further down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker would tell me that I was roaming out of order.
In Inverness yesterday, I chaired a meeting of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee of the Scottish Parliament at which the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise expressed his concern about the enormous damage being done to the highlands and islands economy by the fuel duty escalator. It would have been inappropriate of me to say to him, "Stop there. That is nothing to do with this Parliament. The Secretary of State for Scotland has to fight for the Scottish interest in Westminster." Members of Parliament who are sent to Westminster to represent the Scottish interest sign up to such issues of enormous concern left, right and centre.
Miss Anne Begg: Can I take it, then, that the hon. Gentleman would be happy for someone from Highlands and Islands Enterprise, or whoever is concerned about the fuel duty escalator, to come down and give evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee? That is the only conclusion that we can reach from what he is saying.
Mr. Swinney: I want to continue with my comments about the institutions of the House, but I will certainly answer the hon. Lady's point. My point in response to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) and the Secretary of State is that it is unrealistic to believe that the Scottish Parliament will not encroach on or raise issues that are important to the Scottish people but happen to be reserved.
The principles in paragraph 5 of the Procedure Committee's report have been referred to at length. The first of the principles is that
"in passing the legislation which underlies devolution, Parliament has agreed that certain powers and responsibilities should pass from it to the devolved legislatures; parliamentary procedure or custom should not be called in aid to undermine that decision".
That is a robust interpretation of the Scotland Act 1998.
I am concerned about the fact that the third principle states:
"Members from an area to which powers have been devolved will have a particular interest in business affecting that area".
I suspect that there will be a trade-off between those principles as the issues that this Parliament wrestles with begin to change.
The Procedure Committee recommended that there be a continuing role for the Scottish Affairs Committee, and I certainly welcome that commitment. It is important that

641
the role and responsibility of the Secretary of State be properly scrutinised by a Committee of the House to which he is accountable. He may properly divulge to the House some of the confidential documents about which I am most concerned, if his Scottish Executive colleagues are not prepared to release them to the Scottish Parliament to enable proper scrutiny there.
We need to be able to find out what the Secretary of State is doing, what he costs and what his office costs. That is a matter of enormous concern. The running costs for the Scottish Office for the current financial year were initially estimated at £2.4 million, but I read in the newspapers that they have gone up to £5.7 million and are expected to rise to £6 million in the next financial year. That is 138 per cent. more than the original estimate. If that is an example of the new Administration's book keeping, it is a pretty unhappy one.
I recognise that the Scotland Act 1998 entitles the Secretary of State to certain powers, but it is important that we should have proper scrutiny when he is removing from the Scottish block the amount that is required to run his Department. It is important that the Scottish Affairs Committee should be in there, scrutinising his activities. It should also scrutinise the work on reserved matters, including the climate change levy, the fuel duty escalator and IR35—the Inland Revenue document—all of which cause great concern to my constituents. In a Select Committee environment, members can consider dispassionately how those issues are handled.
When we debated the role of Select Committees earlier, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made an extensive case for the requirement on their members to act independently of the party Whip, on the basis of the evidence before them. That is exactly what we need Scottish Members on the Scottish Affairs Committee to do. They must consider what is happening dispassionately, from a Scottish perspective, and be prepared to call to account United Kingdom Departments that are pursuing an agenda on reserved matters that is hostile to the Scottish interest.
Mr. Alexander: Does the principle of the dispassionate scrutiny of the Executive by a Select Committee hold good north of the border, and would there be a conflict of interest when a party's leading spokesperson also held the chair of the relevant Select Committee?
Mr. Swinney: That matter is being considered by the Procedures Committee of the Scottish Parliament. I will happily abide by the outcome of that consideration. Before the hon. Gentleman makes such remarks, he should read the official record of that Committee and reflect on some of the remarks that his colleagues north of the border have made. I will not embarrass him by recounting them here, as that would probably damage my reputation more than his.
The Procedure Committee has recommended the retention of Question Time; we support that, but with restricted time. I have some concern about how much the criteria for questions can be extended. Madam Speaker referred to the acceptability of questions that relate to
"information that the United Kingdom Government are empowered to require of the devolved Executive".—[Official Report, 12 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 21.]
That is endorsed by the Procedure Committee in its report as the basis for the admissibility of questions.
642
Section 96 of the Scotland Act 1998 states:
"The Treasury may require the Scottish Ministers to provide, within such period as the Treasury may reasonably specify, such information, in such form and prepared in such manner, as the Treasury may reasonably specify."
If that is not a blank cheque for the Treasury to ask what it wants of the Scottish Executive and to require the Executive to supply that information, I do not know what is. It will open the flood gates as to what questions hon. Members may ask in this place. That is a practical illustration of the inconsistencies we face and the fact that some definitions may be stretched in a way that no one envisaged.
Madam Speaker has ruled—the Procedure Committee has supported her view—that Adjournment debates on Scottish subjects may be held in the House only when they relate to areas of ministerial responsibility. On 20 July, I raised a point of order with Madam Speaker about a motion that had been submitted by the Conservative Opposition for a debate on health policy within the United Kingdom. I asked Madam Speaker for some guidance on whether it was appropriate to debate health policy in the United Kingdom after 1 July when power was devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Madam Speaker said that it was not a point of order, and I obviously accepted her ruling. However, I think that we must consider the circumstances of all debates and the steps that led to that motion being accepted inadvertently for debate in the House. I am sure that the Select Committee on Procedure will examine the issue.
Mr. Browne: I intervene on the hon. Gentleman at this stage as he appears to have abandoned his prepared speech. He briefed the Scottish press yesterday about his intention to criticise the Secretary of State for Scotland about his decision to retain the Scottish Grand Committee, which the hon. Gentleman claimed was part of the Secretary of State's "empire building". Did the hon. Gentleman bother to tell the press that retention of the Scottish Grand Committee was part of the written evidence that the Scottish National party submitted in a memorandum to the Procedures Committee; or did he neglect to mention that?
Mr. Swinney: The hon. Gentleman asserts that I have abandoned my prepared speech, but I intend to go through it page by page. This is a website extract from the Procedure Committee report and it presents a sequence—[Interruption.] I will deal first with the points raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) in his intervention—if he has the courtesy to listen. I had the courtesy to allow him to intervene, so he should have the courtesy to listen to my response.
I have various quotations made by several Members: the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), Madam Speaker, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), me and many others. I also have a briefing note entitled "The Scotland Office Rip-Off', which outlines the expanding costs of the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I have referred already to section 96 of the Scotland Act. My speech is crafted on AS paper and written in my own hand. The next page is entitled "Grand Committee", so I am about to address the issue about which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is so concerned. [Interruption.]

643
The Secretary of State is behaving as discourteously as the hon. Gentleman. I will come to that point in a moment.
The Procedure Committee report states:
"Grand Committees are, in some sense, an alternative to devolution and when devolution is effected, they are no longer appropriate."
I am prepared to accept that point of view. My party made a submission to the Procedure Committee in February 1999. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) failed to refer to the part of our submission that said:
"It is to be questioned whether there remains a role for the Scottish Grand Committee. It remains an appropriate forum for the debate of the reserved matters from a distinctly Scottish perspective, but this is also within the Scottish Parliament. We therefore propose that it continue on a trial basis for the time being."
That was in February. We have had a trial period. We have had a number more of them. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) presided over the last one in the former Scottish Assembly building in Regent road, Edinburgh some weeks before the election in May. It was a comprehensive waste of time, just as they all were before the 1997 election. The formula proposed by the Secretary of State for Scotland that we should summon all sorts of United Kingdom Ministers to the Scottish Grand Committee produced nothing but cost to the public purse. No information was given to the Scottish public and absolutely no purpose was served.
In proposing the continuation of the Scottish Grand Committee now, the Secretary of State is simply extending that process of giving institutions to Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster who do not have enough to do and are determined to find a role for themselves. That is what we take exception to. The Scottish Parliament is doing fine work scrutinising important issues. The reserved areas can be adequately handled by the Scottish Affairs Committee, scrutinising them genuinely and dispassionately. There is no need to summon a whole bunch of Labour Members just to say yes to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who seeks to intervene again.
Dr. Reid: I intervene only because the hon. Gentleman did not answer the question that he was courteously offering to answer. Did he tell the press yesterday, when he made the allegation that the Scottish Grand Committee constituted an empire being built by me, that it was the view of his party in its evidence to the Procedure Committee that the Scottish Grand Committee should be retained as it was a useful forum for discussion of reserved matters? Did he tell the press that? If not, is that not one of the most rank pieces of hypocrisy, even by the SNP's standards of double briefing?
Mr. Swinney: In terms of the most rank pieces of hypocrisy, the Secretary of State could outclass me any day of the week. This morning's news reports said:
"These measures were generally supported by the Scottish National Party last night, but it is expected the Nationalists will today heavily criticise Dr. Reid's decision to retain the grand committee."
I have explained the development of our position.
Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Swinney: No, I am making progress. I have explained what we are doing, what we have set out in our arguments and what we are putting to the House today. It is important that we do not have more institutions built upon existing ones simply to create the infrastructure for the Secretary of State to have a bigger role and job.
Mr. Alexander rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may be keen to intervene but I will not have two Members standing at the same time.
Mr. Swinney: I have spoken for 22 minutes, which is longer than I had intended and I certainly wish to give other hon. Members the opportunity to take part.
We do not want to see institutions built upon institutions to create a job and a role for the Secretary of State for Scotland and his not-so-busy Labour Members at Westminster. The key point in our proposals today is that there must be no unilateral interference in the matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament by Westminster—the Select Committee on Procedure has helped us with a number of definitions by what it has reported today. Westminster must respect the right of elected representatives of the Scottish Parliament to express their views on any number of issues, the scope of which will be for the Scottish Parliament to determine.
Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Swinney: I am bringing my remarks to a close. I have spoken for longer than I had anticipated because I was so gracious in accepting interventions.
The final issue does not concern me because I represent a Scottish constituency and I have no desire to intrude on the domestic debate within England about how it is governed, but there are legitimate issues about the governance of England that are not answered by the Government's response to the Procedure Committee's report. The Government should reflect on that. The logical solution to the position that has resulted from devolution is to establish in Scotland an independent Parliament with the powers and control over Scotland's resources to fulfil the aspirations of people in Scotland and meet their expectations in all policy areas.
5 pm
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Perhaps I should declare an interest as a Member of the Scottish Parliament. I am proud to be a Member of that Parliament, but I am proud also to be a Member of this Parliament until the general election. Unlike the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), I see a central, crucial role for Scottish Members in this Parliament throughout the next century and beyond.
Mr. Swinney: I should also have prefaced my remarks by declaring an interest as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to make that declaration now.
Mr. Chisholm: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have a coherent view on the Scottish Grand Committee. We all

645
enjoyed his attempts to explain the earlier submission on that issue by the Scottish National party. I noted that he resorted, as a final defence of that submission, to the explanation that the party supported the Grand Committee on a trial basis. Since 6 May, the Scottish Grand Committee has met on precisely no occasions. That must be the first trial in the history of Parliament based on no sittings whatever. For opportunistic reasons, the SNP changed its view simply because it wanted to continue its campaign against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and on this occasion the Scottish Grand Committee was the stick with which to beat him.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who led the debate for the official Opposition, restated the charge that Labour Members have not thought through the consequences of devolution. However, it strikes me that the Opposition have not thought through the consequences of their central proposal. Their oft-repeated message, which is directed at their English electorate, relates to English and Welsh Members voting on English and Welsh legislation.
There is a case to be made for that by those who believe in federalism, and the Liberal Democrats are consistent in that regard. There is even a case to be made by those who believe in an English Parliament, but the official Opposition keep saying that they do not believe in federalism or an English Parliament, while making their populist, opportunist appeal to their English voters.
In this century, only between 1964 and 1966 has there been a Labour majority in Parliament and a Conservative majority in England, but we know that on some future date that situation could arise. By quoting John Mackintosh, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) made the important theoretical point that the Opposition's proposals undermine the whole nature of Cabinet Government in this Parliament. One party could have a majority in England, but another party might command the UK Government, and the Opposition know that in those circumstances we would have, for example, a Health Secretary for England who could not get legislation through the House. If the Opposition wanted to make their proposals and move towards federalism, that would be a consistent position, but it is totally dishonest of them to use the argument about English votes without thinking through the consequences of their proposals.
Mr. Grieve: Surely the hon. Gentleman himself has half-answered the question. It is unlikely in practice that limiting votes on English and Welsh issues to English and Welsh MPs would affect the viability of the United Kingdom Government. That is a good reason not to go down the road to the federalism of which the Secretary of State does not approve. However, on those occasions on which such a situation could arise, the Government would, in any event, be inherently weak, and the fact that they might be shorter-lived as a result probably does not matter for the sake of making sure that the Union is maintained, and that the people of England and Wales consider that they have been treated fairly as a result of the way in which devolution works north of the border.
Mr. Chisholm: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is proposing a federal solution, and he should think of its consequences.
646
The settlement, as agreed by legislation in the House, is based on a fundamental distinction between devolved and reserved areas. As a consequence, all Members of the House have a vote in reserved areas. The fundamental principle of the settlement is power sharing, and we should remember that that is at the centre of what we are discussing.
I noticed that, at the start of the debate, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said that the language of devolution was inconsistent with the centralising instincts of Downing street. I do not know anything about the instincts of Downing street, but I do know that, in the past few years, Downing street has handed over more power than any other Government did in this or any other century. That is the reality of the decentralisation of power. Now, on the brink of a new century, we are moving forward to a century of power sharing—by contrast with the 19th century and most of the 20th century, which were centuries of nationalism.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Tayside has left the Chamber, because my fundamental reason for objecting to the ideology of the Scottish National party is that it is rooted in the nationalism of the past, whereas we are moving on the tide of history towards the power sharing of the new century.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman has three times used the term "power sharing". Would he care to give the House his definition of that? He seemed to be mixing it up with divesting the House of its power, and I do not think that power sharing is exactly as he envisages it.
Mr. Chisholm: I was going to speak about power sharing. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State summed it up in the word "symmetrical". He said that the House should be concerned with the reserved areas although it could at times, if it wished, discuss areas devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, whereas the Parliament and Assembly should concentrate on their devolved areas, although they could sometimes discuss the reserved areas.
That is the partnership that the new settlement is all about. We all know that that is how it will work. Power over health policy and education policy in Scotland lies with the Scottish Parliament; power over social security policy and defence policy and other areas lies in this place. I hope that that partnership will extend to all levels of the political process—to the devolved bodies and to the constituencies. I hope that, sooner rather than later, individual MPs and MSPs will get used to focusing on their specific areas. I am sure that that is already happening—that Members of the Scottish Parliament are dealing with constituents who come to them about health or education, whereas Members of this Parliament are dealing with constituents who come to them about social security or immigration.
That separation of powers also underlies many of the suggestions in the report. When I first thought about the subject, I shared many of the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)—who, in his submissions to the Procedure Committee, said that his first instinct was that there should not be a Scottish Grand Committee, a Scottish Affairs Committee or Scottish questions because devolved areas only would

647
have been discussed in them. If that had happened, or if those areas had been discussed substantially at all, I would certainly not have supported the continuation of those bodies. However, the report and the Government's words show that it is intended that those bodies should focus not on devolved areas but on reserved areas as they affect Scotland. That is the massive role—I hope that Welsh Members will forgive me if I focus on Scotland—that Scottish Members of Parliament will continue to play in the House.
Often, the media do not seem to understand that massive areas of policy affecting Scotland—social security, Treasury matters, defence, foreign affairs, and many others—are still being decided in this House, and that, increasingly, Scottish Members will devote themselves to and focus on those issues. The work of the Secretary of State and the different Committees should all be seen in the light of that general point.
As the first paragraph of the memorandum of understanding says, the Secretary of State is speaking for Scottish interests in all those reserved areas, and part of that work—which is not understood by many people outside the House, including the media—is the crucial work of the Secretary of State in the Cabinet Committees. So much of the work of Government takes place in those Committees. It is crucial that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present to argue for Scotland in the same way as Scottish Office Ministers used to do in the past.
Mr. Alexander: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties that has bedevilled many of the debates on these issues has been the basic failure of people to understand that the mandate of Members representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster is derived not from the Scottish Parliament, but directly from their election by the Scottish people at general elections? In the light of that, it is reasonable, defensible and attractive to have a situation where powers can be shared within Parliaments, because within defined and limited areas, Parliaments have competencies. There are reserved areas—the areas that are dealt with by Westminster Members, whose mandate for them is derived directly from the Scottish people. Equally, Members of the Scottish Parliament have a mandate derived from the Scottish people in respect of devolved areas of government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. They are not a chance to make another speech.
Mr. Chisholm: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South. I hope that over time, members of the public will come to have that understanding.
Having dealt with the Secretary of State, the next contentious issue is the Scottish Grand Committee. I do not see that as problematic. It seems only natural for Scottish Members to want to express an interest in reserved areas as they affect Scotland. I have dealt with the position of the Scottish National party, but I was surprised to see the SNP changing its mind. The hon. Member for North Tayside gave the example of the fuel duty escalator. At some point he might welcome a Scottish Grand Committee, where that issue could be discussed in relation to Scotland.
648
On a lighter note, the hon. Member for North Tayside said that before the general election, Scottish Grand Committees had been successful only in helping to obliterate the Conservative party in Scotland. That is also an argument in their favour.
Theoretically, there might be more contention in relation to Scottish questions and the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. When those involved are dealing with reserved matters, they can tread on the toes of other Secretaries of State and other Select Committees. Basically, that is a fact of life that we must accept in the new settlement. I think that there can be negotiations within Westminster so that the Secretary of State and the Committees can take an interest in the various reserved areas.
Mr. Swinney: Does the hon. Gentleman think that a report of a Select Committee would be more effective in changing the Government's mind in a particular policy area than a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee?
Mr. Chisholm: I do not see why we have to make an exclusive decision about that. Clearly the Select Committee and the Scottish Grand Committee would have different roles. I am a great supporter of Select Committees and of the Committees of the Scottish Parliament. Equally, however, a Grand Committee can express a view.
With the Procedure Committee report and the Government's response, we have a sound basis for building the new sort of Union that we want to create in the new century. The United Kingdom has never been a unitary state, even under the old dispensation, but it is now clearer that we are a Union of different nations. I believe that we can go forward into the new millennium strengthening the bonds within the Union, but making sure that nations can express their own concerns and priorities because of the new opportunities that the Government have created via devolution.
5.14 pm
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley): I want to be succinct because I feel that as a member of the Select Committee that produced the report, it is more appropriate to listen and afterwards to read the report of the debate.
I shall touch on two matters that came through to the Committee, and certainly to me, but do not come through in the rather dry report that is before us. The feeling came through quite clearly—I salute my ancestors, who were almost all Scottish and Macdonalds, a comment that has probably started the war again—that the role of a Scottish Member in Westminster following devolution had dramatically diminished. One had the feeling that some Scottish Members were wondering what on earth they would do with their time. That feeling is exacerbated by the over-representation of Scottish Members in the House. I understand that that will be righted in two elections' time, and I regret that it will not happen earlier.
It seemed to me that various approaches to the problem were possible. The over-representation could be reduced. The tight boundaries on discussion in this House of matters before the junior Parliament, if I may put it that way, could be broadened. I use local government in England as an example, although I accept that it is a tenuous example.

649
Local government in England comes under heavy scrutiny in the House. That presents an opportunity. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs suggested a joint Select Committee between the two Parliaments, and consideration should be given to that proposal in the Procedure Committee.
The Committee's immediate response was to examine whether the procedures could be reduced to meet the diminished role. There was considerable debate and we agreed—rightly, I think—that the Select Committees should continue. They have a definite role. However, we were clear—some of us emphatically so—that the Scottish Grand Committee should go. As one can imagine, there was quite a squawk, and we are hearing the reverberations from some hon. Members this evening.
Consequently, it was decided to try a "suck it and see" approach, and to ask for the matter to be laid to one side for a time, to be tested. It is with considerable regret that I note that the Government take the same position—test and see—without actually testing it. I hope that they will think about the issue more carefully and recognise that the Committee carefully adopted a similar posture to that of the Government, but intended to use the opportunity to test whether we needed the Grand Committee.
The second view that came across clearly was that England was not being represented and was not getting a fair crack of the whip. The Committee argued that Bills—I should say all legislation—relating exclusively to England, Scotland or Wales should be considered in Committee by Members representing the relevant part of the United Kingdom. There have been examples of that under previous Governments, particularly in the case of legislation relating to local government. Generally, such Bills relate to England and Wales, and it would be appropriate for Members from those two countries only to participate in the discussion and perhaps even in the vote.
I stress those two topics because they are not represented in the report, although they provoked the most heated discussion. I hope that deep consideration will be given to those views, which the Government seem to have rejected. That is a mistake, and they should think again.
5.19 pm
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who chairs the Procedure Committee. He spoke today with directness and honesty. Those who do not serve with him on a Committee may not see the hon. Gentleman's diligence and energy, hard work and output, to which, in spite of political differences, I and everyone else pay tribute.
We have just heard from the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) an equally honest account of how he sees things. To my mind, he has just spelled out to the House a recipe for tearing the United Kingdom asunder. He directly challenged the role of Scottish Members of Parliament in this House of Commons, with which the Procedure Committee's report dealt in detail. If we go down the route of excluding Scottish Members of Parliament, not only will it damage relations between us within the United Kingdom, but it will leave England immensely impoverished. That is because all of us bring to debates and deliberations on legislation in this place our experiences, and the experiences of our constituencies and of our regions.
650
In this House, Madam Speaker, like previous Speakers, lays down clear rules for calling on Members of Parliament to participate in questions and debates according, among other things, to what she believes they have to contribute from their experience.
On Tuesday, when the Deputy Prime Minister spoke in the House on the terrible rail tragedy at Ladbroke Grove, those who were called to put questions to him had some interest in the matter, such as the Chairman of the Select Committee. Only those with some interest were called. We have a history of that.
On 19 May, one Home Office Minister was answering questions about the Government's proposals on the right to elect for trial by jury. Hon Members were called from both sides. A number of hon. Members suggested that any restriction on that right was a tremendous infringement of civil liberties. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), a Scottish Member of Parliament, rose to say that the Scottish people have never really had that right, that it is a matter for the prosecution. If Madam Speaker had not called my hon Friend, on what, as a consequence of the Procedure Committee's report, might be considered a wholly English issue, the House would have been immeasurably impoverished and ill-informed, or would certainly not have had that information.
I have a children's hospital in my constituency and, when the problems arose in Bristol, I, like, I am sure, other hon. Members in a similar situation to me, obtained a briefing from the local consultant on whether there was a likelihood of anything similar arising. I was informed why, without prejudging the final outcome, it was unlikely that anything similar would arise.
If we are saying that the right of a Member of Parliament from one part of the United Kingdom, be it Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, to inform a debate and—to come directly to the point made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley—even to vote, to avoid a problem and a pitfall into which people may be blindly walking, should be removed, that would be bad for the people of England as well as for the way in which we legislate in this place.
Mr. Grieve rose—
Mr. Russell Brown rose—
Mr. Griffiths: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but I give way first to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting contribution. Is it not a fact that I, as a Member of Parliament for the United Kingdom, with, as it happens, a great interest in conservation in the highlands and in the Cairngorm area, which I know well, can no longer intervene on the question of the Cairngorm funicular because that is one of the consequences of devolution? It may be a loss, but is there not a measure of unfairness when the reverse is not the case—and an unfairness which is likely to grow unless the issue is addressed, possibly incrementally, but certainly now?
Mr. Griffiths: I realise that the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the House in the previous Parliament.

651
He did not see the impact of hon. Members telling the Scottish people exactly what they thought was best for them—the poll tax and a catalogue of other measures, for example. I do not want to rake through history, but that was a mistake. It would be a mistake if hon. Members from parts of the United Kingdom other than England did not take full account of what local Members of Parliament were saying and what was informing them. Restricting the dialogue and debate in any way would be quite detrimental.
Sir Paul Beresford rose—
Mr. Russell Brown rose—
Mr. Griffiths: I have a point to make to the hon. Member for Mole Valley, but before I do so I shall honour my word to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown).
Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend, and perhaps I can add to his argument. He is fully aware of the location of my constituency. The point being made in the Chamber, which has been made in the past, concerns restricting the voting power of Scottish Members. As important as the health care offered by Dumfries and Galloway health board in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency is that provided in Cumbria, because about—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. An intervention must be brief. The hon. Gentleman is not the only Member who has perhaps made a small speech during an intervention, but that cannot be allowed.
Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend was making a valuable point.
Sir Paul Beresford rose—
Mr. Griffiths: I will give way to the hon. Member for Mole Valley, but I shall perhaps provoke him a little further by giving an example that comes to mind because of something that was said about the problem of English Members of Parliament—or, indeed, Scottish Members of Parliament—not being able to vote on the reform of local government in Scotland, but being able to vote on such reform in England. We may learn in two scenarios: the Scottish Parliament may make mistakes, which we will want to inform the House of and avoid; equally, we may want to participate in reforms of local government that are carried out by the House and which we will then want to commend to our colleagues up in Scotland. This is not a clear-cut issue in terms of participation or voting.
Sir Paul Beresford: There is an opposite to that. I, and many of my hon. Friends, have experience of local government in England, but we are not able to contribute to any debate on the reform of local government in Scotland—unless, perhaps, this House has more far-reaching effects on its junior Parliament than are presently envisaged or allowed.
Mr. Griffiths: I can be more direct with the hon. Gentleman than I was with the hon. Member for
652
Beaconsfield, his colleague on the Front Bench, because he was a Minister in the previous Government. The damage that I am afraid was done in Scotland is the reason why there are no Conservative Members of Parliament representing Scottish seats. Under no circumstances will we make the same mistake in England.
On page 139, the report raises several issues under the heading "Post Devolution Concerns", and the hon. Member for Mole Valley touched on one of them—the electoral change that may be needed in Scotland in respect of boundaries. I am concerned about one aspect of that. Let me concede at the outset that there may be a case for considering how many electors in cities such as Edinburgh, which are comparable to cities elsewhere in the United Kingdom, should elect a Member of Parliament. However, the biggest discrepancies can occur in rural areas—the smallest electorates in Scotland live in the islands, for example—and we shall have to be very careful. The biggest seat in Scotland—Ross, Skye and Inverness, West—covers 3,500 sq m of territory and has an electorate of some 55,500.
Sir Paul Beresford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Griffiths: No, because other hon. Members want to speak.
If one wants to adjust that boundary and have a bigger electorate, does one go north to Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, where there are already 3,200 sq m to be covered, or south to Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber, which covers 3,300 sq m and has an electorate of 65,500—closer to the English average of just under 70,000? The biggest English seats are all more than half that size. Indeed, the biggest English seat is well under half the size; the second biggest is less than 1,000 sq m and, therefore, less than a third of the size. Those seats sit together. Hexham, which is the second biggest—Penrith and The Border is the other—has an electorate of 59,000. In recognition of the fact that the Member of Parliament representing that seat has to cover such a large area, his electorate is 15 per cent. lower than the English average.
I use those examples to inform the House of the problems faced. Although we do not live in an age when one has to spend a month riding on horseback around the constituency, or even a week or two, and most of our constituents now have telephones, people are increasingly sceptical of politicians' intentions. As one who is passionately committed to public service, I know of the sacrifices that are made by everyone in this Chamber, and I think that our constituents appreciate them. However, if one expands some of those big constituencies, it becomes impossible for hon. Members to cover them and see their constituents, and to keep the link that we prize so much.
From the tenor of some of the comments made in this debate, I fear that those who will be most disadvantaged are not the Scottish Members of Parliament but the electorates not just of Scotland but of Northern Ireland, of Wales and, most important in the context of this debate, of England.
5.33 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: To quote Lewis Carroll, this debate is becoming curiouser and curiouser. We have been discussing the West Lothian

653
question for hours, and the architect seems to be missing from the Chamber. There is some talk in the Lobby that he has been imprisoned in Millbank Tower, but I do not know whether that is true.
Post-devolution, many questions will have to be asked. There is uncertainty about how the relationship between this place and the National Assembly for Wales will develop, but, crucially, there is some uncertainty about the future relationship and conduct of affairs with the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, and the important role that the National Assembly will play in that regard.
It does not matter whether one is on the progressive side of the argument—believing that devolution is a process, not an event—or on the regressive side, or dinosaur tendency, which adheres to the opposite view. We have before us a real opportunity to improve the governance of Wales and, in so doing, to bring it far closer to the people. That will bring with it a far greater sense of accountability, something that I am sure that we would all want.
In the European context, I am pleased to note that the agreed concordats provide:
"In appropriate cases, the leader of the delegation could agree to Ministers from the devolved administrations speaking for the UK in Council … and that they would do so with the full weight of the UK behind them".
My party and colleagues in the Scottish National party have been campaigning for that for a long time. It is a great step forward, but whether it happens is another matter. I hope that it will happen, if devolution in its true sense is to come about. I welcome the day when Scottish Ministers and Welsh Secretaries conduct affairs on the European mainland. Despite what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said in his redoubtable, forceful and eloquent way, as usual I do not agree with him.
There are many other issues to consider, such as the deep and wider agricultural crisis in Wales. The crisis in Wales is different from that in the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom. There is an immediate case for a Secretary from Wales to represent the National Assembly at a European level.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: My hon. Friend has referred to concordats and our problems in agriculture. Does he agree that we could make considerable progress if the Government in Westminster were to push ahead with plans to have much wider concordats between, for example, the National Assembly's Agriculture Secretary and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so that the ground rules are clear into the future?
Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The concordats are very important documents. We have waited a long time for them, and I welcome the fact that they have now been produced. I am pleased that they will be reviewed annually. Despite what I said earlier, I realise that this process takes time and we cannot have all the answers at once.
The impact of the agricultural crisis on all sectors of the Welsh agricultural economy is slightly different, and problems will be tackled differently from those in East Anglia, where substantial farmers farm in a totally
654
different way. I hope that we take advantage of this concordat, and move forward to better the situation of people in rural Wales.
In March this year, I gave evidence to the Procedure Committee, which is ably chaired by the hon. Member for Macclesfield. I welcomed that inquiry because things were, and are, going to change. My major concern at that time was the suggestion that the Welsh Grand Committee should be abolished: "suspended" was the word used. To be perfectly honest, the Welsh Grand Committee is no great shakes. Its list of achievements is minimal, to put it mildly. It has never taken any decisions of earth-shattering importance.
Nevertheless, it is a conduit to Welsh opinion, and, in its latter stages, it met several times in Wales and was a tangible and useful link with the electors. Fewer meetings in Wales may be called for post-devolution, but the vital point that I was trying to make then, and that I wish briefly to make now, is that the Welsh Grand Committee is entitled, under current Standing Orders, to sit as a Second Reading Committee. That is the crux of the matter. It could be used as a Liaison Committee with the National Assembly: a sounding board providing a fast-track procedure for legislation that the National Assembly wants to bring before the House without its being caught up in the timetable that inevitably clogs up work in this Parliament.
I recall the exchange that I had with the Chairman when it was suggested that the new Chamber in the Grand Committee Room could serve as a venue for Welsh debates. It does not matter where the Committee sits. I believe that that made the case for the Welsh Grand Committee. I took the view that it was important that we fought to retain the Welsh Grand Committee. I am pleased that the Government have sided with my party on the evidence that we and others gave that day. I believe that the Welsh Grand Committee still has an important role in the current settlement. I welcome paragraph 5 of the Government's response to the report. I agree that to suspend the Welsh Grand would be premature and possibly damaging. I share the Government's view that that forum is a useful mechanism for debating issues of particular interest to Wales.
Some of the more cynical in our midst might place a different construction on that. Curiously enough—speaking of cynics—it was put to me by a member of the lobby that this might enable central Government to reel back a bit; but I prefer to think that that is not the case, and that it is a contribution to devolution. I am not naive, but I genuinely believe that that is the right construction, and that the process will be assisted rather than impeded.
The question of a legislative platform for the National Assembly is vital. It is one of the core points. As others have observed, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs engaged in a fruitful discussion with a panel of chairpersons of the various National Assembly Committees. We are graced by the presence of one of them today—my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones). The prevailing view seems to be that the Welsh Affairs Committee could become a conduit, or sounding board, for legislation, and that the Assembly might want that to happen.
We heard earlier that whatever legislation was introduced must be introduced at the behest of the National Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. That is

655
fine: I have no problem with it. Such action could focus on the primary legislation that was considered a priority by the Assembly, but it could also provide a useful mechanism for feedback from Westminster on the progress of primary legislation. It should be stressed, however, that the Welsh Affairs Committee could not be the sole route or interface for communication. I feel that the Welsh Grand Committee should perform that function as well, because, in my view, the situation requires a bolster of that kind. Meetings that I have had with Welsh Assembly Members of various political hues suggest to me that they and Welsh Members of Parliament unanimously want the relationship to succeed, in the interests of better governance in Wales.
The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) made a point that impressed me greatly, but it seems to have escaped me now. No doubt, it will come back to me in a moment. His speech contained so many impressive points that it is not surprising that I missed out one or two.
Perhaps the most important of the report's recommendations for Wales is that there should be a new way of dealing with legislation relating exclusively to Wales. Instead of the current Second Reading debates on the Floor of the House, for most Bills of that kind, special Committees would be set up. If agreed, Bills would then proceed to Committee and to other stages. That would provide a fast-track system: Bills would not be clogged up in the procedures of this House.
The Procedure Committee rejected the suggestion that Second Reading should be taken in the Welsh Grand Committee, and I feel that that was a mistake. I think that I have made the point sufficiently. The Procedure Committee suggested that there should be an ad hoc Second Reading Committee containing at least 20 Welsh Members of Parliament. That implies that there might be a different political balance—that the Second Reading Committee might reflect party strengths in Wales, while the Committee stage Committee might reflect the strength of the Commons as a whole. That may give rise to concern.
The Government's response is careful and considered. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the words
"debating issues of particular interest to those parts of the UK"
envisage the possibility that the Welsh Grand Committee will become a debating chamber for particularly Welsh business. Can we consider strengthening it by giving it a role involving liaison with the Assembly, initiating Bills to be dealt with by this Parliament rather than relying on Government time or private Members' procedures? That might envisage a requirement on Government to introduce any Bills that are presented to them by the National Assembly. The Committee would surely be the forum for that.
I deal with two short matters of substance. One is the scope of future inquiries of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. The obvious point is that the Select Committee's remit will be that of non-devolved areas that impact on Wales. It follows that the remit must be examined carefully and redefined. For example, if there were a problem to do with taxation, defence, social security or one of the other reserved matters, Welsh electors would not have the same rights via their
656
representatives and the respective Select Committee to scrutinise and to hold the Department responsible to account. That presents a case for broadening the Standing Orders. In fairness, the Procedure Committee suggested that, although that suggestion has not found favour, as yet anyway, with the Government. However, the tenor of the Leader of the House's speech was careful and balanced. To put it crudely, it was a wait-and-see speech. I should like to develop that theme further at another point.
There is no doubt that we need to look at that matter. We have talked about fairness for various constituent parts of the United Kingdom, but that point is crucial. I commend the letter of 14 October from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs to the Leader of the House as the right way forward. I have no doubt that it can be reconsidered at another point.
Therefore, the Procedure Committee's recommendation of a relaxation in that area is right. Of course, I do not agree with the Government's view, but, as I have said, I hope that the matter can be revisited fairly urgently. There will be an urgent need to redefine the working of the Select Committee if, as is suggested, it is to carry on working.
I am not saying that to perpetuate my membership of the Committee—I have other things to do—but it is in the best interests of our constituents; that is really what it is all about. As I have said, I am sure that the Leader of the House will be prepared to debate the matter at another point.
The other matter is the Government's correct belief, that Select Committees will play an important role in fostering good relations between Westminster and the respective devolved legislatures. In the words of the Government's response:
"It is possible that they will also conduct inquiries in conjunction with Committees of the devolved legislatures into subjects for which responsibility is shared."
That makes sense. It will reflect the tenor of the useful recent meeting between the Select Committee and National Assembly Members in Cardiff.
The Procedure Committee's view on joint meetings appears to be a little negative and not reflective of the views of Assembly Members and Members of the House of Commons, as far as I am aware. At paragraph 17, the Committee said:
"Committees should not hold formal meetings in conjunction with Members of the devolved legislatures without the express authority of the House and Members should be aware that there is no guarantee that their words enjoy the protection of Article IX of the Bill of Rights in any informal joint meetings."
That is a bit negative. Clearly, what is needed is for Standing Orders to be changed. I hope that we shall persuade the Leader of the House that a Standing Order change is necessary to foster good regular meetings and good relations with the devolved legislatures. The reference to privilege is clearly not insurmountable and can be cleared up with a little ingenuity.
Subject to the caveats that I have mentioned, the Procedure Committee's report is broadly to be welcomed, as is the Government's response. Both are constructive and will assist devolution. If the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) pleads for a full legislative and tax-varying Parliament for England, he can rely on Plaid Cymru for support.
5.50 pm
Miss Anne Begg: I shall concentrate on two aspects of the report. The first is expressed in the report's very first paragraph, which says that the Committee supports an evolutionary approach. That is to be welcomed, and I note that some matters are still evolving.
Secondly, I shall concentrate on the role of the Scottish Affairs Committee, of which I am privileged to be a member. I believe that I am also the only member of that Committee who is to speak in this debate. I was very happy to note that, if the report's recommendations are accepted, for years to come I shall have a long and fruitful time on the Select Committee, the powers of which may even be enhanced.
Over the years, many of the House's procedures have developed through habit and repute. Our procedures have not been written in tablets of stone, and the same should apply to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. One evolving feature of devolution has been the relationships developing between Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament—and I ask hon. Members from the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom to forgive me if I concentrate most of my remarks on the situation in Scotland.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), I am in the unusual position of being in a different party from that of the Member of the Scottish Parliament representing my constituency there. One might therefore think that, if such a situation causes tensions, I would be aware of them. However, I am happy to report that it is possible to have good working relationships with members of other political parties.
It is important for my constituents in Aberdeen, South that I should work with, not against, the Liberal Democrat Member of the Scottish Parliament representing my constituency. In fact, the two of us met and decided how we should deal with the various cases that will come our way. It was not terribly difficult to reach a decision on a procedure, and other hon. Members may want to copy the model—which essentially boiled down to dividing a Member's role into an advocacy and a policy-making function.
In determining which of us should fulfil the advocacy role, the primary consideration should be to whom the constituent went first. However, if a constituent came to me saying that Scottish housing policy, for example, should be changed, I would pass on the case to the Member of the Scottish Parliament. Conversely, if someone had a query on social security policy but went to the MSP, the case would be referred to me. The arrangement is not terribly difficult to understand.
Nevertheless, I believe that there is a case for an evolutionary approach to dealing with those matters, as we cannot know what other issues will arise. Moreover, various grey areas between the two Parliaments will inevitably become apparent.
As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I find it difficult to know which Minister we should approach on various issues. Health, for example, is a devolved matter. Therefore, one might expect that, as a Scottish Member, I should not write to United Kingdom Health Ministers on health policy, which has been devolved. However, some health matters have not been devolved.
658
To use a personal example, I have a single-gene defect. However, genetics is not a devolved matter. So if I wanted to lobby on my condition—or on one like it, such as cystic fibrosis—the appropriate Minister to approach would be the Secretary of State for Health, not the Scottish Minister for Health. Needless to say, I should hope that the Member of the Scottish Parliament would be lobbying the appropriate Scottish Ministers on precisely the same issues. In dealing with research into genetics and the cure for certain conditions, I would hope that any advances would be applied United Kingdom-wide and not only in Scotland or in England. That will be for the benefit of everybody in the United Kingdom.
That is a personal issue, but others are not so clear-cut. A constituent wrote to me about the fact that her child was born with an eye defect because she had been in contact with toxoplasmosis before he was born. I see no contradiction in a Scottish Member of Parliament alerting the Secretary of State for Health, because the issue will affect people throughout the United Kingdom. I am sure that other hon. Members would want to be involved in campaigning on changing the policy.
These grey areas are important. That is why the relationship between the two Parliaments should be of an evolutionary nature until we see how matters work out. The golden rule in those relationships should be common sense and maturity. The First Minister called the devolution settlement a grown-up Parliament. It will need maturity in both Parliaments to make commonsense decisions on who should take up cases or whether it is appropriate for both Parliaments to deal with issues at the same time.
I support the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) that there is nothing to prevent this Parliament from discussing devolved matters or to prevent the Scottish Parliament from discussing reserved matters. We are looking for self-discipline in both Parliaments. When an issue is obviously a reserved matter, such as broadcasting, the Scottish Parliament should not discuss it. Issues relating particularly to Scottish broadcasting or the media in Scotland should be left to Scottish Members of Parliament to raise here. Scottish Members of Parliament should have the self-discipline not to raise most health issues or matters that are peculiar to the Scottish education system, which is very different from that in England and Wales.
We need to be mature. Perhaps there was some confusion when members of Highlands and Islands Enterprise spoke to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) about the fuel escalator. They may have been unsure whether he was sitting in front of them as a Member of the Scottish Parliament or as a Scottish Member of Parliament. Perhaps he should have said that he was wearing his other hat that day and they should have come back to see him the following day when he would be wearing his Member of Parliament's hat. Such confusion—if it was confusion—should be solved after the next general election, when I hope that the other political parties will adopt Labour's policy of saying that there should be no dual mandates. That will make it even more important for the relationships between the two Parliaments to be well established by the time of that election, so that any tensions can be smoothly dealt with.

659
I am pleased that the Scottish Affairs Committee has survived the report. It should continue because it has an important role to play. Interestingly, the Scottish National party's submission to the Procedure Committee lists the reports that the Scottish Affairs Committee has produced over the past two years, while I have been a member. Not all of them were on purely devolved matters. I take issue with the assertion that an investigation into multi-layered democracy was a devolved matter. Surely it would still be within the rights of this House to investigate that to see how well the devolution settlement was working.
The Scottish Affairs Committee's next report will look into poverty in Scotland. Social security remains a reserved matter, but many other aspects of poverty are devolved matters. Perhaps this report will be the model from which we can start to see this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament working together. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh)—who is in his place—is a Member of both Parliaments, and a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, and at least one other Member is a Member of both Parliaments.
As a dual mandate exists until the general election, we have an opportunity to set up relationships between the two Parliaments. It is important that Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament get together often to share their experiences. For most Labour Members of Parliament, this will mean meeting someone else. I appreciate that when Scottish National party Members wish to liaise with their counterparts in the Scottish Parliament, they must speak to themselves. I hope that their relationships are cordial, although I am not always sure that they are—even within that narrow remit.
The Scottish Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee could have a valuable role in terms of liaison at Back-Bench level. We know that liaison exists at an Executive level, and that the Secretary of State for Scotland regularly meets the First Minister. I am glad to see that happening. However, it is important that there is also liaison at Back-Bench level, and at the lower levels of the Parliaments.
I was worried for a while that there would not be enough for the Scottish Affairs Committee to look into, but I am glad that the hon. Member for North Tayside has expanded what will be relevant. He said that if the Highlands and Islands enterprise board or Scottish Enterprise was concerned about the fuel escalator, the Scottish Affairs Committee could call them in to give evidence. I had assumed that the Scottish quangos would be held to account by the Scottish Parliament, and I am grateful that there may be a role for the Select Committee in looking at those quangos.
Mr. Swinney: The hon. Lady has totally misunderstood my point. I said that on a UK-reserved matter, I saw that there was a role for the Scottish Affairs Committee in providing the opportunity for such evidence to be taken. However, that concerns holding UK Ministries to account. It is not about holding to account Scottish quangos which receive their funding from the Scottish Parliament; that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. It is important that
660
UK Ministries listen to what is going on in Scotland and do not ignore it, as they are currently doing with regard to the fuel duty escalator.
Miss Begg: But how will we know the views of the Scottish quangos if we do not have them down to ask them questions? We cannot depend on press reports, as we know how accurate they can be; the hon. Gentleman himself was caught out today by the press. Obviously, we need to get the story from the horse's mouth, and if there is genuine concern among Scottish bodies about reserved matters in Scotland, we need to find that out. That will be the role of the Scottish Affairs Committee.
The hon. Member for North Tayside said that Scottish Members of Parliament do not have enough to do. This week, I have tabled questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Prime Minister and the Department of Trade and Industry. I have signed an early-day motion on the test ban treaty, and I have had a briefing from the Secretary of State for Social Security. I have been involved in a range of things in which I, as a Member of this Parliament from Scotland, have an interest. If Scottish National Party Members have no interest in reserved matters, I wonder what they have been doing for the past two years. There is a great deal more for Scottish Members to do than even I had anticipated. We have an important role.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate an important report. I am sure that there will be evolutionary change. It is crucial that the issues be aired and debated both here and in Scotland so that we can come to a mutual understanding and the two Parliaments can work in harmony.
6.5 pm
Mr. William Ross: I have followed this debate with interest for most of the day. Scotland and Wales have been mentioned frequently, but Northern Ireland only rarely, possibly because devolution is yet to take place there. It is well known that the late John Smith, when Leader of the Opposition, intended to establish a common pattern of devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with minor variations to take account of the different structures of local government. At that time, the present Prime Minister was shadow Home Secretary, and as such was closely involved in all discussions on the design of uniform structures for the three countries.
There is no such uniformity in the current position. Scotland has a Parliament with legislative and tax-varying powers; Wales an Assembly without tax-raising powers; and Northern Ireland a shadow Assembly, also without tax-raising powers. In Scotland, the First Minister chose to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats to deliver a workable majority; in Wales, the First Secretary decided to proceed with a minority Administration; but in Northern Ireland, under the legislation passed in the House, the First Minister designate has to lead a four-party coalition—some call it an unholy alliance. The Executive there is different from any other in not having collective responsibility. A more awkward state of affairs would be difficult to imagine or design.
I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree that it is often difficult enough to get Cabinet agreement with only one party involved; but of course he can sack those who

661
disagree with him, which cannot be done in Northern Ireland. A two-party coalition, even when the two parties share some goals and values, presents further problems. How on earth is the First Minister of Northern Ireland expected to deliver sound governance when he has four parties with widely different policies, aims, values and, indeed, methods, to satisfy?
What sort of decision making would result in Scotland if the Cabinet consisted of representatives of the Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Scottish National parties? How would Wales fare under an Executive comprising Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Plaid Cymru members?
Mr. Llwyd: Very well.
Mr. Ross: Perhaps we shall see about that in time.
How does anyone expect an enforced coalition of members of the Ulster Unionist, Democratic Unionist, Social Democratic and Labour parties and Sinn Fein-IRA to produce stable government in Northern Ireland? Why should such an arrangement succeed there when it has been rejected as a model for the remainder of the kingdom and, to the best of my knowledge, in the rest of the world? If such an arrangement were to succeed, future elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly would simply be redundant, as a four-party coalition would form the Executive as long as the Assembly continued in existence. Let us not forget that all that is on the assumption that Sinn Fein-IRA can be persuaded to decommission or, to be more brutal about it, to surrender their weapons. The Gardai at least seem to be doing rather better in that respect at the moment, and we welcome that.
Once again, the Government's policy on Northern Ireland represents the triumph of hope over experience. They have a vague idea of how they want things to work and believe that they know how they should work, but when it comes to putting the theory into practice, a yawning chasm opens up.
I want to consider the effect of devolution on the oversight of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. When the devolution order comes into force, if it ever does, responsibility for all matters relating to Northern Ireland, other than excepted and reserved matters, will be transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Ministerial responsibility for those transferred matters will pass from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to Northern Ireland Ministers who are supposed to be accountable to the Assembly.
Ministerial responsibility for excepted and reserved matters will remain as at present and will continue to be discharged by the appropriate United Kingdom Minister. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will thus retain responsibility for a wide range of important policy areas, including security, policing, criminal law, public order, prisons, human rights, equality and payments into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The Secretary of State will also assume responsibilities in relation to the British-Irish Intergovernmental Council and will have a continuing interest in the British-Irish Council.
Under the terms of Standing Order No. 152, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's areas of oversight that are related directly to the expenditure, administration and policy of the Northern Ireland Office and other matters within the responsibility of the Secretary of State
662
for Northern Ireland will change automatically in line with the changed responsibilities of the office and the Secretary of State. Thus transferred matters will fall automatically outside the Committee's terms of reference—although the finance that will flow to those particular expenditures will come from the United Kingdom tax revenues. I shall say more about that later.
The establishment of devolved Administrations in three areas of the United Kingdom marks a major constitutional shift, and I believe that people throughout the United Kingdom—and particularly those in Northern Ireland—have not yet fully grasped the long-term downstream consequences. We are departing from the traditional British model of an unwritten constitution, whereby change is gradual and evolutionary, and arriving at a written constitution. An inevitable consequence of this shift is that future Government decisions will be more open to legal challenge, as occurs under the federal system of the United States, in Canada to a lesser extent and in Australia.
Any discussion of the procedural consequences of devolution must take account of the United Kingdom's only previous experience: the Stormont model under which the government of Northern Ireland was conducted between 1921 and 1972. Under the devolved Stormont parliamentary system, which was established in 1920—another system was set up in Dublin, but never functioned—the central Government retained certain functions. Under present devolution arrangements, specified bodies have been given several specified powers. So the approach is very different: in the latter example, certain things are devolved and, in the original example, certain things were retained. Those who have examined the original arrangements—the present Secretary of State for Wales has had to consider them in relation to Northern Ireland in the past year—will know that certain things were transferred that should not have been. I believe that the present system is much better.
Hon. Members must recognise that all elected bodies try to increase their powers. The most recent example—we do not have to look far to find it—is the European Union and its efforts to increase its scope and powers. It would be naive in the extreme to expect our devolved assemblies to behave any differently. It will inevitably diminish the power and influence of the House of Commons as elements in those devolved bodies seek constantly to probe and push the boundaries of their powers, and to extend them in all sorts of ways and in all directions where a Government have competence.
If hon. Members read the speech of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), they will see that he has spelled out clearly the nationalist methodology. I am familiar with it and other hon. Members will rapidly become accustomed to it. The hon. Gentleman is, after all, a nationalist: his party believes in a Scotland that is free from any oversight by this place. Members of the Welsh parties undoubtedly feel the same. Anyone who thinks that those folk will behave any differently from Irish nationalists is living in a dream world. Indeed, these assemblies came into being not because this House had an overwhelming wish to devolve powers but because it was necessary owing to pressure on the ground. I live in the real world, not the fairytale vacuum that sometimes seems to accompany these debates in the House.

663
The Scotland Act 1998 includes over 30 powers to make subordinate legislation. Of these, 26 are subject to procedure in the Westminster Parliament only, and normal scrutiny arrangements will continue to apply. A further four are subject to procedure in the Scottish Parliament only. The procedures which it adopts for consideration of these orders are a matter for itself. Of particular interest are the five powers that are subject to procedures in both the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments. This approach has been used where both Parliaments have an interest. The relevant powers include the adaptation of cross-border public bodies, the transfer of property of cross-border public bodies and the regulation of the Tweed and Esk fisheries. I think that others will emerge later. These powers will require co-ordination between the two Parliaments and between appropriate Ministers of the Crown and the Scottish Executive. It is not possible to determine what precise arrangements will be required until the Scottish Parliament has determined the scrutiny procedures that it will adopt.
Some interesting comments were made in the memorandum from the Leader of the House and it is worth re-reading it carefully. Among other things it said:
"In order to consider instruments subject to parliamentary procedures both at Westminster and in the devolved assemblies, there will have to be some form of liaison between the scrutiny committees of those bodies to avoid the possibility of different conclusions being reached on, say, vires. The scrutiny arrangements will not apply to any instruments made in Edinburgh or Cardiff which do not need to be laid at Westminster."
There are so many hundreds of these instruments passing through the House that inevitably there will be questions. No one should imagine that the more nationalist elements in the assembly parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will let slip any opportunity to portray any proper scrutiny by Westminster as inappropriate interference in their affairs. Such tensions are not only likely; they are as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow morning.
Devolution will also have an impact on parliamentary questions, written and oral. For example, what will happen to areas of interest that cross boundaries: transport, sea transport and European Union trunk roads? A very important road to Northern Ireland passes across south-west Scotland. We wish that much more money had been spent on it by previous Secretaries of State for Scotland, but that is by the by.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Hear, hear.
Mr. Ross: I hear support for that and I have had support from the Scottish National party in the past because the road passes through the hon. Gentleman's former constituency. It is a road that I travel several times a year to and from this place. I just wish that it was better. These areas of responsibility all receive money from central Government, so central Government will retain a strong vested interest in them.
The Select Committee on Procedure noted that when the Government of Ireland Act was in force, questions relating to matters transferred were disallowed. The Committee stated that if this precedent were adopted, the scope for questions in the House relating to Scotland would be extremely limited, although there would be
664
greater opportunity for questions relating to Wales and Northern Ireland. The Committee considered the Stormont precedent to be too restrictive, but I believe that friction will be the consequence of extending the scope of parliamentary questions into areas that are even partially the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. They will certainly be portrayed as such.
We need to look at how central Government will try to retain control and clout in areas with devolved government—how, indeed, they will poke their nose in there, to put it bluntly. I understand that under the Australian system of government, devolved territorial matters, which derive not from the federal arrangements but, as I understand it, from the constitution of Australia, can be raised in the Federal Parliament in Adjournment debates. That may very well present a means by which Westminster could retain a degree of control and scrutiny over Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland matters. I recall all the complaints that were made because Northern Ireland was not discussed in the House for 50 years. There is an opening for such discussion.
There is a proposal that Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland Committees should be restricted to matters controlled by the relevant Secretary of State. However, the financial contribution—the tax of the United Kingdom as a whole which funds those bodies—will open a door for the House of Commons to debate those matters, again in Adjournment debates secured by individual Members.
There will be much discussion, one way and another, when people decide to stir the pot, and it will not necessarily be stirred by those who want the Union to remain intact; it is more likely to be stirred by those who want it to disappear.
One matter that has not been dealt with in the debate is the raising and spending of money, and that is the central issue in government. The control of the money supply for the public service is the issue over which the House wrestled with the Crown for centuries. That is the point of friction and the fulcrum. It will also be the test of whether the Labour party is nationalist or Unionist in character in Wales and Scotland, where it will be the dominant party. That question has not yet been answered, but it is clear from the contributions made today that not all Labour Members will be on the same side of that dividing line, and some day they will all have to make up their minds. I look forward to that because it will be as instructive for that party as it will be for the country at large.
I turn now to the question of concurrent meetings between the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. This issue applies also in Wales and Scotland. Aside from the obvious difficulties of the extent of co-operation and responsibility, another problem presents itself, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and by a Welsh Member. Some Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly were elected also as Members of this House, but they did not take the oath, do not sit in the House and take no part in it. They do not recognise it. If they had to be present at concurrent meetings between the Committee of this House and the Committee of the Assembly, that could cause difficulties for everyone concerned.
There is, however, a precedent, which was mentioned earlier, for a Committee to be given the power to call into consultation persons who are not Members of the House.

665
In the Sessions of 1932–33 and 1933–34, the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform was given power to call into consultation representatives of the Indian states and British India. Although the delegates were allowed to discuss matters with the Joint Committee—we all know what that means—they were not allowed to participate in the Committee's final deliberations.
Using that precedent as a model for future co-operation is more likely to be satisfactory than using the analogy of a joint Committee of Assembly and Parliament or of other devolved institutions and Parliament, since it would avoid the legal problems caused by the differing status of Committees, which was also mentioned earlier. That would get round the whole question of the absolute privilege that we enjoy when speaking in the House and the issue of papers that have to be brought before Committees. That is dealt with in the report and it is well worth reading.
Unlike its Scottish and Welsh counterparts, the Northern Ireland Executive, comprising as it does four parties, will not be easily able to formulate clear policy. However, the problem is even worse than that. The Northern Ireland Assembly cannot endorse anything using a simple majority; rather, the agreement of a majority of Assembly Members from the Unionist community and a majority of those from the nationalist community must be achieved. Although to some observers that may appear to be an example of what is meant by the new buzz words, "inclusive government", it appears to me and many others a recipe for inertia and stagnation, and it will almost certainly ensure that hard choices will be shied away from. Once again, Northern Ireland is being asked to accept a system that the Government would not dream of foisting on Scotland and Wales, let alone applying to themselves.
The appearance of the whole affair, especially regarding Northern Ireland but also regarding Scotland and Wales, is that the Government have not clearly thought out the long-term consequences of their policy. That was borne out by the recent experience of the Welsh Cabinet as it sought to pursue its own line on agricultural issues in Europe.
Lord Roberts of Conwy said in another place:
"our experience of devolution to date—brief as it is—suggests that only the fullest possible co-operation and mutual support between the executive elements in the new system are required if the best interests of the peoples they govern are to be served".
His sentiments were echoed by Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton, who said:
"I share with the noble Lord the belief that we are all working together to overcome any minor difficulties at the beginning of the process."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 13 October 1999; Vol. 604, c. 358.]
The trouble is that those minor difficulties will be like Topsy—they will just grow.
Experience of Northern Ireland leads one to anticipate something more serious than "minor difficulties". If the Government continue to pursue their present policy of "no Executive without Sinn Fein-IRA", the people of Northern Ireland will be faced with two possible outcomes.
Either Sinn Fein-IRA will disarm so that they may take their place in the Executive, or they will not. Even if those concerned are successful in forming the four-party
666
coalition to attempt to govern Northern Ireland, and even if they can secure the support of a majority of both Unionist and nationalist Assembly Members, there will be difficulties. If they are not successful—which has seemed increasingly likely in the past day or two—the Government must assess the position once more and decide whether a majority of democratic Members or Sinn Fein-IRA dictate policy for the future government of the Province.
In closing, I would refer to the comments of Baroness Thatcher in her memoirs. She said:
"In dealing with Northern Ireland, successive governments have studiously refrained from security policies that might alienate the Irish government and Irish nationalist opinion in Ulster, in the hope of winning their support against the IRA. The Anglo-Irish Agreement was squarely in that tradition. But I discovered the results of this approach to be disappointing. Our concessions alienated the Unionists without gaining the level of security co-operation we had a right to expect. In the light of this experience it is surely time to consider an alternative approach".
I believe not only that the time may well come again, but that it is practically upon us. However, I believe that the West Lothian question, which was raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), will be with the House for a very long time. It will increase in importance, and those who think that Santa Claus will come and take all their troubles away will be very severely disappointed.
6.28 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The debate has been vigorous and interesting. That may be characteristic of debates not on a Government issue or narrow party political issue, but on a Procedure Committee report.
The Secretary of State for Scotland said, as he has said previously, that he seeks the co-operation of those parties that believe in the Union to make the Union work. Although I am aware that he sometimes criticises the official Opposition for their approach to devolution, I should tell him that it is our aim to make the Union work. I regret, and am disappointed by, the fact that Labour Members do not always accept that our commitment to making devolution work, and our commitment to the Union, are total.
However, at times the way in which the Government approach the consequences of devolution—it is their creature, and they have risen to the challenge to produce it—makes Conservative Members worry whether the Government are willing to take the challenge past the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998, and make the relationships work. That is what the debate is all about.
It is worth while starting with a few basic principles. The speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) appeared to me to be a model of its kind in the way in which she personally was setting about making devolution work. It was a most impressive performance and I listened to it with great interest.
The principles are clear. There must be fairness between the different parts of the United Kingdom. There must be openness in the relationship and a recognition of the real transfer of power that has taken place by the vote of this Parliament. If we fail to take those approaches, we shall be heading for trouble. Required also is a willingness to address the knock-on consequences of what we have done.

667
There is a major challenge for us all. There is a challenge for the Government, a challenge for those of us in the House who are firm on the Union and determined to make it work and thrive far into the next millennium and, above all, a challenge for common sense. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South might almost be said to be espousing the commonsense revolution of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—using those very words in addressing devolution.
The issue is how we shall meet the challenge. It is significant that nine members of the Procedure Committee which produced the report were Labour Members who support the Government. It is greatly to their credit that the report of the Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), should have come up with such creative solutions. Even if we, the official Opposition, would wish to go further on some issues and even if we, as we have stated clearly, believe that there can be no long-term solution to the West Lothian question without English and Welsh Members having a monopoly of vote on English and Welsh issues in this place, much creative good sense has come out of the report. That being so, we welcome it.
The report is perhaps a classic example in the House of what happens in the more informal framework of discussion in Committee, when party political mantras are abandoned and Members start objectively to consider some of the problems that have arisen.
One of the principal areas that we have discussed is procedural issues. Above all, there is the question of how legislation is handled in this place. The Government's response, which was published only yesterday, seems to be hopelessly inadequate. Why is it that in an area where it is acknowledged by the very occurrence of devolution that there are diverse interests within the United Kingdom that need to be recognised, Bills that relate solely to Scotland or Wales or England—we might go further and say England and Wales together—should not be referred to a Second Reading Committee for consideration?
We are certainly not going as far down the road as Opposition Members would wish in respect of English rights, but Second Reading Committees would at least provide a forum where the public could see how issues were being addressed in the different areas of the United Kingdom by their representatives. If the Government did not like it at the end of the day, it would be open to them, by putting Bills in the Chamber on Second Reading, to overrule whatever conclusion the Second Reading Committees had come to. I suggest that the Government do not want to go down that road because in the event of there being massive opposition from representatives from the particular—the only—part of the United Kingdom to be affected by the legislation, it might be an unwise Government who started to ignore the views that had been expressed.
When considering the way in which the Government have approached devolution, one of our anxieties is that the way in which matters have unfolded since the devolved Parliament or Assembly has come into being suggests that having given with one hand they are trying to claw back with the other, largely through the back-room mechanisms of the Labour party. Such a
668
system is bound to fail and has already shown clear signs of creating the very tensions that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South was at such pains to diffuse.
Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I realise that he is short of time. I have one simple point to put to him. There is no such thing as an exclusively English public spending measure in respect of health or education. Because of the way in which the block grant is calculated for Scotland, every single public spending decision that is made in the House has a knock-on effect on Scotland.
Mr. Grieve: I accept that the way in which the Budget is set will be a United Kingdom matter, but once that has been done and the Barnett formula has been brought into operation, there is no good reason why English Members of Parliament should not determine how the expenditure is spent in England. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument on that point.
The second issue that exercised us considerably during the debate was the future of the Grand Committees. I confess that I find the Government's position inexplicable. As was rightly said by several hon. Members in the debate, the Grand Committees were set up as an alternative to devolution. Devolution has occurred. Although I accept that there may well be occasions when Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament may wish to express a view in debate that is particular to the problems facing their own regions in reserved matters, I do not see why that cannot be done in a forum such as Westminster Hall, where Members of Parliament from English constituencies—or, indeed, from Welsh constituencies if the matter under discussion related to Scotland—could also contribute to the discussion.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) highlighted the loss of cross-fertilisation of ideas between Members from different parts of the United Kingdom. I heartily endorse that view. One way of making sure that such cross-fertilisation continues is by ensuring that we have far more debates, for which Westminster Hall provides the very forum, and by ensuring that hon. Members who participate in those debates are drawn from all parts of the United Kingdom with interests in those matters.
The Grand Committee is a dinosaur relic. I was astonished when the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) suggested that the justification for the Grand Committee lay in the existence of the regional Standing Committees which, unless I am entirely mistaken, have not met since the late 1970s. That is a poor analogy. Regionalisation in England is not desired, and I would not wish to go down that road. There should be maximum opportunity for hon. Members to pool their ideas in a forum such as Westminster Hall, not through the Grand Committee.
The only proposal was that the Grand Committee should be suspended, not abolished. Such a measure could easily have been taken, but the Government have funked it, possibly because it has been a device that they could throw as a sop to their own Back-Bench Members from Wales and Scotland, to maintain the illusion that they would be able to continue as before. That is a failure to accept the reality of devolution, which the Opposition have shown themselves much readier to accept.

669
The role of the Secretary of State is a critical issue underpinning the Procedure Committee's report, although there is an exceptional lack of clarity on the matter. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not take my comments amiss. I fully recognise that through his efforts he is attempting to make sure that devolution works, even if I sometimes think that he is doing it wrongly, and that he is also attempting to define the relationship between himself and the First Minister in Scotland.
It is perhaps inevitable, but it is undoubtedly an unsatisfactory state of affairs that, several months after the devolution settlement has started, it is unclear what the Secretary of State is doing—whether he is simply dealing with the remaining reserved matters which belong to him, or whether he is acting in some sort of ambassadorial role as a broker and facilitator between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive and this House and the United Kingdom Government.
It is important that we should have some more clarity because, as I said earlier, in fairness to the Procedure Committee, it is difficult to decide what questions should be allowed until one knows what answers can be given, and, above all, what answers can be given without those answers being a gross intrusion on the remit of powers that has been devolved to the Scottish Executive. It is an area that is ripe for conflict which the House needs to consider. The fact that the Procedure Committee has been unable to consider it completely is not its fault; it is because we have never had any clarity on the issue.
Simply by looking at what is in the concordats and then at what is said by the Government, one can see clear differences of emphasis about the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It would be helpful if we could have some further clarification from the Secretary of State on the issue.
The second problem, which appears to Conservative Members to be considerable, concerns the nature of the concordats. They, too, must underpin how procedure develops in the House. The concordats were published late and we may well have to have a far more detailed debate on them at some later date, but it is worth looking at what they say to start to understand some of the problems.
To begin with, the second paragraph of the introduction of this extraordinary document presented by the Lord Chancellor and, I presume, drafted by him, states:
"This memorandum is a statement of political intent and should not be interpreted as a binding agreement. It does not create legal obligations with the parties. It is intended to be binding in honour only."
The last person I heard say that he was bound in honour only was a gangster who was about to appear in court, and it concerned his relationship with fellow gangsters. It all ended rather badly when the honour code under which they were operating collapsed.
But there is a point to this. The relationship between the different parts of the United Kingdom will work only if those who live in different parts of the United Kingdom wish it to work. There is no other basis to the concordats. There is no other basis to devolution. One of the most stunning aspects of the concordat document is that it blindly assumes that the Northern Ireland Executive, once set up, will be willing to sign up to it in exactly the same terms as has been done in Wales and Scotland, something which they have no obligation to do within their own devolved areas.
670
Therefore, the concordats will have to be renegotiated every time there is a change of Administration in Edinburgh or Cardiff—I think that the Secretary of State will have to accept that—unless they command such widespread acceptance in conventional matters that no one would wish to gainsay them.
That is why it appears to Conservative Members that the Government's approach in the matter is badly flawed. During the past three months there has been ample evidence that resentments are being stoked up—resentments with regard to the relationship between the Government and the Scottish Executive, which have been making newspaper headlines in Scotland virtually every day of the week; resentments which we English Members of Parliament pick up from our constituents in relation to the unfairnesses of devolution. In those circumstances, it is for the Government to ensure that public opinion triumphs in wanting to make devolution work. Accepting the Procedure Committee's recommendations would have been a good start.
6.44 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): We have had a wide-ranging and useful debate this afternoon. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and all the members of his Committee for the obvious work that they have put in. We are all deeply grateful to them.
As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, the debate is not taking place in a vacuum and I shall remind the House of why we are having it. The Government came to power in 1997 with a clear commitment to modernise our constitution and to decentralise power throughout the United Kingdom. Devolution is about modernising the way in which we govern ourselves in this United Kingdom, decentralising power and empowering local institutions. I say that because devolution did not have the universal support of the House or of the parties represented in it.
Throughout the two decades during which we were working out the details of devolution, two parties opposed it tooth and nail: one party is represented on the Benches opposite me; the other is the Scottish National party. They were adamantly opposed to devolution. One party wanted to keep everything totally central; one wanted everything totally separate in Scotland. There has been a remarkable coincidence of views tonight, and the remarkable feature of tonight's debate is that the same two parties are still opposed to the devolution settlement.
Those parties oppose the role of the Secretary of State and of the Scottish Grand Committee—and what is, in practical terms, the outcome of the referendum. I am not for a minute suggesting that of hon. Member for Macclesfield, but merely pointing out the context in which the debate is taking place: the same unholy alliance of Tories and the SNP is doing everything to impede the practical working out of the devolution settlement, in the same fashion as they opposed the establishment of this partnership of Parliaments over the past 20 years.
Mr. Swinney: Can the Secretary of State inform us of any devolution measures put before the House in the past 20 years that Scottish National party MPs voted against?

671
Will he say which political parties campaigned on 11 September 1997 for the Scotland Act 1998, which was enacted by the House?
Dr. Reid: It does not surprise me that the Scottish National party votes for every piece of legislation that takes power from the House outwards; it comes as no surprise to anyone. The fact is, and I am choosing my words carefully, that for 20 of the 22 years that we were debating the practical proposals of this devolution settlement, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) and his colleagues opposed it. They underwent a conversion of Pauline proportions 18 months before the referendum, when they decided that they would back it. They support the Scottish Parliament the way a rope supports a hanging man, and they support devolution in order to strangle a devolved settlement because they recognise that devolution means a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. Just as my party opposed centralism, it will continue to oppose the separation, divorce and break-up of the United Kingdom which the hon. Gentleman and his party represent.
Mr. Welsh rose—
Dr. Reid: If I may make some progress, I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.
Devolution is not about nationalism and it is not about separatism. On the contrary; in its practical implications for the House it is a response to the perception in the United Kingdom that the Government had become too remote, too centralised and out of touch with the needs of real people. The nationalists—the separatists—have exploited that perception, but I make it clear that devolution is as much about rebuilding and modernising the partnership that is the United Kingdom as it is about responding to local needs.
There is another important point about devolution being a process: empowerment does not begin and end in Scotland or in Wales. I hope I speak on behalf of the whole House: we hope that we are united in believing that the continuing efforts to solve differences in Northern Ireland and to enable the Good Friday agreement to be implemented will be successful.
The Greater London Authority Bill, which is close to completing its passage in the other place, will pass substantial executive powers downward, and elsewhere in England we are addressing the concerns of regional economic development by setting up regional development agencies. Regional chambers are being established in all regions where local authorities and other partners can come together to give voice to the interests of their region. The Government have made it clear that they are prepared to give regions of England directly elected assemblies where there is a demand for them. Devolution is a process, but not one that will inevitably lead to the break-up of the Britain.
Devolution is a process of empowerment that should be spread geographically to all areas of the United Kingdom. It is not a one-size-fits-all solution; it is a policy that has been tailored to suit the various parts of the United Kingdom and the Union as a whole.
Many of the points that Opposition Members made tonight were about inconsistencies, as if devolution and the British constitution had for centuries been free of
672
inconsistencies; as if both Chambers of this Parliament were elected—that is an inconsistency. I notice no opposition to that inconsistency from Opposition Members. The British constitution is strong because it can deal with inconsistencies, whether they are on the grand scale of one elected Chamber and one appointed Chamber, or whether it is because a male Roman Catholic Scottish Member of Parliament can vote on whether the Church of England has women ministers. The British constitution is riddled with inconsistencies. That is not its weakness; it is the strength of the United Kingdom.
That is why, with all our inconsistencies, we have gone for centuries avoiding coups d'état, civil wars and the disruption that occurs throughout Europe among people who have little, neat, consistent, written constitutions. The more the Opposition denigrate our constitution and its flexibility, the more they illustrate that they do not understand what it means to be British and, in practice, to support the Union.
Mr. Grieve: I heartily endorse all the Secretary of State's comments about the strength of the inconsistencies of the British constitution. However, are they not there because they are accepted? It is when they no longer command acceptance that they need addressing, which is in a sense exactly what the right hon. Gentleman did over devolution and should now do over the knock-on consequences.
Dr. Reid: That is exactly the point to which I was coming—at last we find something on which we agree.
The question, therefore, is not whether we have a neat, tidy, symmetrical equation that matches up on every side; the question is, does it work? Does it respond to the needs and aspirations of the people of the United Kingdom? We have devolution precisely because it responds to those questions. As we decentralise, and empower people throughout the United Kingdom, we must change at the centre, and we are prepared to do so. That is precisely why we are having this discussion. We are prepared to change. I speak with a Scottish accent and I accept that we must have fewer Scottish Members of Parliament.
I accept that there must be a diminution in the time that we spend on Scottish questions, but I do not accept the implication of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and his nationalist allies that, now that they have failed to stop one side of the devolution settlement—the establishment of our Parliament—they will not stop until they have completely diminished the presence of Scottish or Welsh Members in this Union. I do not doubt their sincerity and motives No one was more sincere or purely motivated in defending the United Kingdom than Baroness Thatcher however, and no one did more to break up the fabric and unity of the UK than that same lady, whatever her motives.
Mr. Welsh: The Secretary of State is a unionist and a nationalist. We accept those as honourable standpoints, and argue for and against them. However, I cannot allow him to rewrite history. He will find that the Scottish National party supported the Labour party on devolution. I was in the Chamber in the 1970s, and some of the biggest opponents to devolution included Neil Kinnock and some of his colleagues in the Labour party.
Dr. Reid: I do not want to get involved in private grief within the SNP, but it is now in a peculiar position.

673
Its candidate for the Hamilton, South by-election said that she did not really want to come to Westminster in the first place. I presume that she came here to watch Alex Salmond. Alex Salmond does not come here. The Queen comes to this House once a year, which is slightly more frequently than the leader of the SNP. He says that he comes here to keep an eye on the British Government. Meanwhile, Margo MacDonald says that she does not want to go to the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood because she opposes that, but she goes there only to watch Alex Salmond to see whether he is selling out there—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is referring to another Member of this House. He should therefore do so not by his name but by his constituency.
Dr. Reid: I thought that Margo MacDonald had left the House, but perhaps she attends with the same regularity as the leader of the SNP and I have just missed her.
I can tell members of the Scottish National party that no one in the House is fooled by anything they do. They have only one reason for being, which is to break up Britain and to divorce Scotland from the United Kingdom and from the House.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
Dr. Reid: I will however listen to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Macclesfield.
Mr. Winterton: In the last five minutes of the debate, could the Secretary of State direct his attention to the fourth report of the Procedure Committee, which we are discussing? I am interested in his response, because the Committee hopes that in due course the Government will implement more of our recommendations.
Dr. Reid: Of course I shall do so. I was merely trying to be courteous to our visitors.
One of the great areas of debate was the Grand Committee system. I have an interest in that, not just because of the report, but because I awoke this morning to hear that I was to be decimated on this issue by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney). As usual, he has turned out to be a horizontal champ. He took issue with our decision to disagree with the Select Committee on this matter. He forgot to mention that he supported the Grand Committee system in his submission to the hon. Member for Macclesfield, and he was abandoned by the Welsh nationalists, who supported the Government's position.
The major areas of policy in legislation that affect the everyday lives of men and women in Scotland and England are reserved to Westminster. They are hugely important matters that apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, although they may have a distinct effect in different areas. It is the Government's view that we should have a forum to discuss such matters. There could, for instance, be the controversial issue of the disbandment of the Scottish regiments, but it appears that the SNP would no longer want to have that discussion, because they do not want such a forum.
674
The Government accept that the Grand Committee system should apply to Wales, and believe that it should also apply to the regions of England. That is why we submitted proposals to the Modernisation Committee for a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, which would allow, for instance, MPs from Yorkshire or from Lancashire to discuss issues that would be implemented at UK level, but which would have a distinct effect on the people in their area as a result of local demography, local geography or local history. That is eminently sensible. I have read that it is my intention to use Grand Committees to duplicate the work of the Scottish Parliament. That is not my intention. There are many important matters to discuss, and I am more than happy for English MPs to discuss them as well.
There was much talk arising from the report about the unfairness of Scottish MPs, participating in English debates. That argument would carry slightly more weight if I had not read the list of questions at the previous Scottish Question Time in the House. Hon. Members may be interested to know that Question 1 was from a Conservative, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) obviously spoke during Scottish questions. The hon. Members who spoke on Question 2 were the hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
The number of questions that English MPs table at Scottish Question Time is considerable. I have no complaint about that: it is appropriate and proper. However, it is not proper for the Opposition to argue one thing when it comes to English MPs, but to argue the opposite when it comes to Scotland.
I commend the Government's response to the report, and I hope that the House will accept it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Fourth Report from the Procedure Committee on The procedural Consequences of Devolution (HC 185), and the First Special Report from the Committee (HC 814) containing the Government Response.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 25th October, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motions in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Financial Services and Markets Bill (Suspension), Thursday Sittings, Meetings of Standing Committees, Sittings in Westminster Hall, Questions to Ministers, Select Committees (Devolution) and Advocate General for Scotland not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Jane Griffiths be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts.— [ Mr. McNulty, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Rural Post Offices
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [ Mr. McNulty.]
6.59 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to be able to raise this issue so early in the overspill period. I welcome the Minister to the debate: he has some experience in these matters, and we are delighted that he has a chance to bring it to bear in the Department.
During the summer, my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and I engaged in consultation in our respective constituencies on the impact of some of the proposed Government changes on the future viability of closed offices. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I believe that the Minister has no objection—my hon. Friend may seek to catch your eye later.
Three things were made clear by our consultation. The first—I am sure that the Minister does not need to be told this, for everyone knows it in their heart of hearts—was the importance of the social role played by post offices, especially small community and sub-post offices, in village communities. They have a social dimension, and they are often a focal point. Their value goes beyond their economic importance.
Secondly, it was clear that there was considerable uncertainty, indeed confusion, in the minds of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in regard to the future, and how their financial viability would be sustained in the wake of some of the changes that will come on the back of the legislation for the Post Office that we expect to feature in the Queen's speech.
The third thing that was made starkly clear involved profitability. The Post Office representatives whom we consulted spoke with a single voice: they all said that their profitability was being continuously and inexorably undermined, to the extent that some were wondering whether they could remain profitable. In my constituency, post offices have recently been closed in Wilton Dean, in Hawick and in Heiton, just outside Kelso. There have been closures because of a lack of candidates for the job of postmaster or postmistress in other parts of my constituency, such as Auchincrow, Birgham and Burnmouth. There is a lot of stress out there, and a lot of anxiety.
For many years, the rural post office network has been supported by the peculiar dependence on transaction charges for benefit payments. It mainly involves pension books, but it involves the whole range of benefits. In the recent past, post offices have derived their core income from those sources, on which they have come to depend. An average of 35 per cent. of annual income is derived from them in typical rural sub-post offices. I am told that in inner cities the figure is even higher: it can be as high as 60 per cent., and apparently some 80 per cent. of annual income is derived from the giro-cheque system of benefit payment in one post office in inner-city Glasgow.
The National Federation of Subpostmasters estimates that at present some 5,000 post offices are on a financial knife edge. We all know—the trends can be seen in the records and the statistics—that between 200 and 300 sub-post offices are closing each year, before the
676
introduction of any changes, and I believe that making automated credit transfer payments compulsory could well be the last straw for many businesses. When we talked to people in south-east Scotland—in the borders—in the summer, we learned that many were planning to get out before things became worse. Many have mortgages, and their homes are part and parcel of their businesses. They live above the shop. They are concerned about the capital value—the capital assets—represented by their businesses: they are so worried about the possibility that those businesses will become unsustainable and debts will begin to accrue that they may leave.
It is a mistake to scaremonger, but I believe that the next six months will be crucial. Either the Government will be able to give some encouragement to professional people who provide communities with a valuable social service—as well as an economic service—about their viability in the medium and longer term, or many will leave. That would be a very bad thing.
We must go back to 1996 and look at the original conception of the Horizon project. The previous Administration had a good idea, which had a dual benefit in the Horizon programme. They decided to introduce a Benefits Agency payment card. We all remember the pictures of the former Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), waving the card at the Conservative party conference. It was one of the years when he did not sing. The audio-visual aid was the new benefit card, which never saw the light of day.
That was an anti-fraud initiative by the Department of Social Security and had value for that reason alone, but it was used to spearhead the automation of the Post Office network. The two separate policy items had a synergy. They complemented one another. They were an imaginative way forward.
Those two strands of policy are being disaggregated. Automation of the Post Office will be carried forward without any assistance from the benefit payment card. In 2003, the DSS will move directly to automated credit transfer. There are plans to begin to make all payment of benefit cheques via automated credit transfer and banks. That will start in 2003. The process is due to be completed by 2005.
Obviously, there are massive Government advantages with that. The Benefits Agency budget, about which I am concerned as Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, will be £400 million per annum better off. The Department will have better control, particularly over new resource and accounting procedures, where Government Departments have to trace where their assets are at any given time. It will obviously give wider choice. E-commerce is, rightly, a priority for the Government. I encourage them to go in that direction. It will do something to remove the distinction between people in work and people who depend on benefits. All those things are good. I make no secret about that. There are clear advantages.
Having said all that, the Government may intend that people who wish to continue to collect their benefit cash via post offices will be able to do so after the move to ACT in 2003, but they will do that only after the Post Office has introduced suitable bank technology. If people think, and some do, that they will continue to be able to

677
opt out of ACT compulsion in 2003, take their giro book and collect their pension from the post office, they are wrong, as far as I understand the Government's scheme.
if I am wrong, it will be helpful to me, if to no one else, if the Minister puts me right. I do not think that there will be the option to cash any benefit giro cheque in a post office after 2005. It might be done through hole-in-the-wall ATMs—automatic teller machines. It might be done by some clever Barclays scheme, but it will not be done by benefit giro cheque book.
I urge the Government to make that position clear—I nearly said, "Come clean." I do not want to be pejorative, but there is much confusion about what the consequences of the change will be. I am worried about that for several reasons; I again refer to my responsibility for the Social Security Committee.
I was interested to see recent research—it was published in April 1999—by Thomas and Pettigrew called "Attitudes Towards Methods of Paying Benefit." It was instructive. It examined how claimants wanted their benefits to be paid.
The study's main findings were clear. It found that, in general, those who received benefits often budgeted in cash on a weekly basis, as opposed to those who were better off, or in employment, who were much more likely—like, I guess, the Minister and me—to budget monthly through a bank. Benefit claimants clearly prefer a cash-based weekly budget.
We can understand why that is important. People saw order books as providing a guaranteed amount of money on a guaranteed date. That is important for people who live in a financially insecure context. The reasons why they did not want to opt to use ACT included the perceived cost of running a bank account—they will have some real worries about that if Barclays bank gets its hands on the system—concerns about reliability and, in rural areas, closure of local bank branches.
People were also concerned that the system would mean that they would be able to withdraw only whole pounds of money at any given time. Some claimants—it is an important point; I cannot stress it enough—did not want their money to be put into a bank account because their account was overdrawn and the benefit would be used by the bank to cover the overdraft. Therefore, we have some very serious concerns on matters that may dramatically affect how benefit claimants live their lives.
As I said, there are also real worries that, if banks do not play the game properly, although they will still be providing a service, they will do so in a way that is not conducive to the interests of those in the bottom decile of household incomes.
I was very pleased to see in today's Financial Times an exhortation by the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce—who is also a distinguished former member of the Social Security Committee—to the banks to take action to deal with financial exclusion. She said that, if necessary, she will shame banks into providing a service. She is absolutely right on that issue, and I am pleased that the Government are taking action on it. There is a real worry that charges will increase.
Postmasters are concerned that they will lose money because they will have less Benefits Agency business, that they will receive less money per transaction for any business that remains after 2005, and that they will have
678
fewer customers through the door to take advantage of other services and goods that they provide. For all those reasons, the owners of those small businesses are on a very difficult financial footing.
I am delighted that today's written answer from the Prime Minister states that he has asked the performance and innovation unit
"To identify the contribution made by post offices to the vitality of local communities … and in the process formulate objectives for the Post Office network."
I very strongly welcome such action, particularly if it is taken as recommended at paragraph 37 of the 12th report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which deals with the need for the Government to recognise the network's value and to support it financially. The Government should not simply leave the issue of support to the postal services and to ancillary retail outlets, but recognise that there is a social role for rural post offices and support them accordingly. If the innovation unit's report is to tackle that agenda, I should very much welcome it.
I draw the Minister's attention—although I am sure that he is already a subscriber—to The Subpostmaster magazine's September editorial, which states:
"There will always be those in society who need personal care, not just the elderly, but those who find it difficult coping with modern living.
We have always provided that service in our offices as part of our daily routine.
There is so much essential and unpaid service provided in sub post offices of which those who prowl the corridors of power are unaware and that society will not miss until it has gone".
The editorial was entitled "Does anyone care?" I hope that the Minister cares, and that he will tell us why.
7.13 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: I am grateful to have the opportunity of speaking very briefly in this important debate. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and to the Minister for agreeing to my participation.
This debate is on a very important issue. As my hon. Friend has made clear, this summer, as we travelled round our constituencies and the borders, the Post Office's future was identified as a concern not only to those who run and work in post offices, but, most important, to many of those who use post offices.
Time and again, people stressed to us the importance of rural post offices to the communities they serve, not only in providing the more obvious Post Office services, but, as my hon. Friend said, because of the important role that they play in servicing the Department of Social Security and, equally—this is the unsung part of the work done by rural post offices—the general advice they hand out and information on the community that they know, simply because they are the focal point of those communities. In a world in which forms are getting ever more complicated and demands on people are getting ever more pressing, it is very important that that role played by rural post offices should be recognised.
We believe that the viability of rural post offices is under threat because of a process that has been in train for some time. Post offices worry that, in the next few months, if the Government's proposals remain

679
unamended, their viability will be seriously in doubt. However, the post offices are also keen to stress that none of them ant handouts. They are not looking for a Government subsidy, but want to do real work of benefit to their communities and to run profitable businesses. Many now stare the future in the face concerned that the business is going to dry up and that their pension, which is built into the capital value of the business, will be eroded.
The White Paper on the future of the Post Office properly focuses on some of the big issues facing the Post Office generally, but there is real concern that issues affecting rural post offices are not being tackled seriously or sensibly. The post offices in our constituencies across the Scottish borders are the centrepieces of most rural communities. They are already struggling and most are fearful. They need reassurances from the Minister this evening about their future.
7.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): I thank the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for his kind remarks. To quote the National Federation of Subpostmasters journal, I am now prowling the corridors of power, but for many years I was up at four o'clock in the morning as a rural postman dealing with the rural network. I am pleased to be able to make my maiden speech as a Minister on the subject of rural post offices.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on picking this subject for his debate. It is an issue of concern to many people living in rural areas. We opposed the previous Government's plans to break up and privatise the Post Office for many good and valid reasons, but none was more important than our concerns about the effects that privatisation or separation would have had on the rural network of post offices. We understood then, and we understand now, the important role that post offices play in village life and their importance to the poorer and less mobile members of the communities. Their unofficial services are exceeded only by the official services that they provide. I know from my experience of postmasters and postmistresses who go to find out what is wrong if a pensioner does not arrive to collect his pension. That is a crucial part of the social obligations that post offices carry out.
The debate takes place against the background of the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he has asked the performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office to carry out an urgent study on the post office network. The reasons behind that move are the same as the concerns that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) have expressed this evening. The PIU study will seek to identify the contribution made by post offices to the vitality of local communities, to consider how the post office network can best contribute to the Government's objectives for the future and in the process to formulate objectives for the continuation of the post office network.
680
I pay tribute to those post office managers who have done a superb job over the years balancing social needs against commercial objectives. It is a credit to them that 60 per cent. of rural parishes have a post office, whereas only 5 per cent. have a bank. That has been achieved by a combination of remuneration scales that offer additional help to the least viable offices and efforts to ensure a continuing post office presence when sub-postmasters and postmistresses retire and the existing premises close. The social, technological and demographic environment in which post offices operate has undergone considerable change. The process seems likely to speed up rather than slow down, so it is timely to pause and take stock. I very much welcome the PIU study, which will enable the issues and concerns to be fully aired and properly considered.
I should like to confirm again as categorically as I can the message of my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: the Government are fully committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices. In addition to launching the PIU study, we are backing our words with specific positive actions. In our White Paper "Post Office Reform" we have said that, for the first time, we shall publish access criteria for post offices, which the new postal regulatory commission, assisted by a revamped Post Office Users National Council, will have a duty to monitor. We are determined to ensure that everyone has reasonable access to the services provided by Post Office Counters.
We have taken a further important and practical step—we have put the Horizon project back on track. The House will recall that that is the project to automate the counters network. That project is crucial to the future of that network, since it will allow the business to streamline its internal processes and offer an improved service to clients and customers. The project that we inherited from the previous Administration was immensely complex and was running some three years behind schedule, with consequential cost overruns.
We have reconstructed the project in a form that greatly simplifies it, both technically and contractually. As a result, every counter position in every post office in the land—18,000 post offices and 40,000 counter positions—will be equipped with a modern on-line information technology platform by 2001.
As part of the process, we decided to discontinue work on the development of a benefit payment card as an integral part of the Horizon project. After a long and careful review of the project—making extensive use of independent experts—we had serious doubts about the ability of the contractor to deliver the project as originally configured. This is not an attempt to apportion blame. I genuinely feel, as did the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, that the previous Government made an honest attempt to move to a more up-to-date system. However, the decision to streamline and simplify the project by removing the benefit payment card was taken on wider grounds also.
The reality is that increasing numbers of benefit recipients choose to have their benefits paid directly into

681
their bank accounts. Thus, 54 per cent. of new child benefit recipients and 47 per cent. of new pensioners now choose to be paid by automatic credit transfer to their bank accounts. Against this background, we saw the priority as ensuring that post offices were equipped as quickly as possible with the facility to enable both benefit recipients and other bank customers to access their accounts at post offices. The key to this is to equip the network with the Horizon platform as quickly as possible, and that is what our decision will achieve.
Horizon will enable the Post Office to extend its commercial arrangements with the banks to enable benefit recipients and others to access their bank accounts at post offices. We have given a clear assurance in the White Paper that all benefit recipients who wish to do so will be able to continue to access their benefits in cash at post offices after 2003 when the Benefits Agency plans, over a two-year period, to move to a more modern and efficient means of payment, using the existing ACT system.
To assist the Post Office, the Government have agreed to make a substantial contribution to the capital cost of the restructured Horizon project, which represents a major investment in the future of the counters network.
Looking further to the future, the post office network—with its nationwide reach—represents a valuable channel for the delivery of Government and other services. This reach, coupled with the deployment of Horizon, should ensure that the Post Office is well placed to bid competitively to deliver electronic Government applications. We are, of course, ready to look at any new proposals that the Post Office may come forward with to diversify into new areas of business.
I have outlined some of the positive steps and initiatives that we have taken, and are taking, to secure the future of the nationwide network of post offices, including those in rural areas. However, I assure the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and the House that there is absolutely no complacency on the Government Benches. Over the last four years, the network of post offices has shrunk from 19,607 to 18,775—an average annual net loss of around 208 offices. The majority of these losses have occurred in rural areas.
That net figure hides a still greater number of closures, offset by the reopening of offices that had closed in previous years, and the creation of "community offices", which are open typically for just a few hours a week to carry out a limited range of services. In Scotland as a whole, there has been a net loss of 65 post offices over the same period. In the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire's constituency, a total of 55 offices in March 1995 has shrunk to 46 offices, a net loss of nine offices.
It would be unrealistic and undeliverable for the Government to claim that no post office will ever close. About 18,000 out of the total network of approaching 19,000 post offices are run on a franchised or agency basis, the majority of them by individual business men and women, usually in conjunction with some other retail outlet.
That is the position with virtually the entire rural network, and, without that partnership, the rural network as we know it today would certainly not exist. It is estimated that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses have collectively sunk around £1 billion of their own money into their sub-post offices.
682
The ability to share overheads between the two sides of the businesses is often a crucial factor in the viability of each. The footfall generated by customers collecting their benefit payments or carrying out other post office business at the counter and then making purchases on the private side of the shop is an important part of the symbiotic relationship. The village store with its associated post office frequently becomes a focal point for village life: a place where people meet and information is gathered and exchanged.
The sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses—I wish that we could find a generic term for them—are the backbone of their rural communities and are rightly held in huge regard by the people whom they serve. There is not time in this short debate even to begin to do justice to the many examples of exceptional dedication, but I am sure that all hon. Members here tonight will have examples from their constituencies and join me in paying tribute to that exemplary level of public service.
Those independent business men and women need to know that there is a viable future for their businesses. The viability of the network depends partly on Government, but also in large measure on local communities continuing to make sufficient use of their local post office and village shop. If customers stay away, it is unlikely that Government initiatives alone can suffice.
I do not want to disguise the undoubted difficulties that the transition from paper-based to electronic methods of paying social security benefits will cause for Post Office Counters Ltd. The transition, and its financial consequences for the counters business, will be an area to which the performance and innovation unit will pay particular attention in its work over the next month. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the next six months will be crucial to the network's future.
The network needs to have the flexibility to be able to adapt to changing demographics and social preferences. More and more individuals are happy to interact electronically with a range of institutions, including banks and building societies. Increasingly, institutions—including Government—are keen to promote and encourage those modem means of communication. The Horizon platform should leave the counters network well placed to take advantage of those trends.
We should not forget that the network of Post Office Counters brings some formidable strengths. I have already referred to the skills and dedication of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, and the trust and high regard in which they are held by their customers. Despite some shrinkage of the network over the past decade, it remains the largest retail network in Europe. Within the United Kingdom it has an unrivalled reach, with 10 times as many outlets as Boots, Tesco and W. H. Smith combined, and more than all the banks and building societies put together. It is ubiquitous with a capital U.
The business has shown that it is more than capable of taking on new areas of work, and making a success of them. Recent examples include bureaux de change—the Post Office is now the biggest bureau de change operator in the country—the national lottery, the sale of basic insurance products and the extension of banking facilities to customers of the Co-operative bank and Lloyds TSB.

683
The arrival of the Horizon platform, which will shortly celebrate its 1,000th installation, should greatly enhance the attractiveness of the counters network to a range of potential new clients and business opportunities.
This evening's debate has been about the future of rural post offices but I would not want to lose the opportunity to pay tribute to the offices that the Post Office runs and
684
staffs directly—the so called Crown offices—where we have agreed in the White Paper that 15 per cent. of transactions will continue to take place.
Those are the reasons why the post office network in urban and rural areas is crucial to the Government's plans for the future. It is crucial to our policy on ending social exclusion and to the future of our rural communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Coral Nurseries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in the development of measures to protect coral and related nurseries for fish. [93493]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK is a founding member of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), a co-ordination mechanism aimed at promoting coral reef protection and sustainable use of coral reef resources world-wide. One of the functions of ICRI is to provide a framework for supporting the development of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN).

  Since February 1997 the UK Government have funded the development of the South Asia node of the GCRMN in India, the Maldives and Sri Lanka. This has already successfully established the foundations of an effective coral reef management mechanism in the region.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions visited the Maldives earlier this year and saw this programme in action. Whilst he was there, he was able to announce £300,000 of additional UK funding from the Department for International Development, which will assist countries of the region further to strengthen their national coral reef information systems. It will also enable local people to be trained in a wider range of data analysis and its use in coral reef management and will provide continuing advice to the national institutions implementing the monitoring programme.

  In the past, the failure to undertake routine monitoring has been a significant constraint to effective protection and management of coral reefs. This UK funded programme has established a model which can be applied to other reef systems as a basis for helping poor coastal communities to optimise sustainable benefits from coral reef resources, including fisheries.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from non-governmental organisations concerned with development issues regarding the United Kingdom Government's position on the Biosafety Protocol; and if he will make a statement. [94871]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has received no representations to date. Development incomes would be a matter for the Department for International Development.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sub-post Offices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the implications for sub-post offices of the industrial tribunal ruling of 27 September that sub-postmasters and mistresses are entitled to receive the national minimum wage. [95175]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  It is too early to comment on any broader implications for the sub-post office network of the Inverness Employment Tribunal's decision on the pre-hearing of the case brought by Mrs. Elizabeth Bain, the sub-postmistress at Tore, that she is entitled to be paid the national minimum wage. I understand from the Post Office that nationally there are fewer than 1,500 sub-postmasters and post-mistresses for whom the Tribunal's decision is likely to affect their remuneration arrangements with the Post Office.

  Fixed Rate Export Finance Scheme
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the ECGD's Fixed Rate Export Finance scheme. [95430]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD is in active discussion with representatives of the British Bankers Association on a successor to the FREF Scheme that expired on 30 September. To allow time for these discussions to be completed, and for an appropriate successor scheme to be put in place, the scheme has been rolled forward for a further two months to the end of November.

  Millennium Compliance
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made by UK offshore oil and gas producers and oil companies in dealing with the millennium bug; and what measures have been taken by his Department to ensure the security of concessionary coal supplies over this period. [95427]

  Ms Hewitt
  I can now report the findings of the independent assessment process established by the DTI which confirms that UK oil and gas producers and oil suppliers have now attained a 100 per cent. Blue status against the Action 2000 assessment criteria and are now assessed as ready to ensure that it will be business as usual and that there should be no major disruption to supplies due to the Year 2000 threat to computer systems. The DTI has been pleased to take on the role of "responsible body" reporting to the Action 2000 national infrastructure forum on the year 2000 preparations being made by the oil industry and UK's offshore oil and gas producers.

  The DTI has approached this task in a systematic and thorough way, making full use of the industry's own resources. It has engaged WS Atkins Consultants Ltd.—an internationally known and highly respected engineering consultancy with extensive experience within the oil and gas industry—to validate independently the process adopted and its results. The industry has fully supported this important work and provided full and frank access to all the relevant information and staff.
  611
  The independent verification approach adopted by DTI has been agreed with Action 2000 and designed to build on the work already in hand by offshore and onshore companies to avoid duplication of effort. It has been closely supported by the relevant trade associations (UKOOA—offshore oil operators association, UKPIAUK Petroleum Industry Association and AUKOI—Association of UK Oil Independents).

  For the offshore sector, DTI arranged for companies to conduct a stringent assessment process supported by UKOOA, which involved preparation of a report on each operator's state of readiness and its independent confirmation by either a "peer group assessor" or an external consultant.

  To enhance further the independent element in this process, WS Atkins carried out a programme of visits to review the process adopted, the supporting data and its conclusions. The format and extent of the visit programme was determined by WS Atkins. It covered all the key elements of the offshore oil and gas industry including production and onshore terminal/pipeline facilities, and was designed to ensure they could reach a fair view on the overall status of the upstream industry.

  For the downstream oil sector covering the supply and distribution of refined oil products, WS Atkins were engaged to carry out a more intensive role. They prepared and issued on behalf of DTI a detailed and closely targeted questionnaire to all the main downstream players. Following a detailed analysis of the responses WS Atkins conducted a series of detailed on site follow-up visits designed to validate the questionnaire responses. Officials from DTI and other interested Government Departments also participated in some of the visits.

  Again, the visit programme was determined by WS Atkins and designed to ensure that they were able to form a fair view of the overall status of the downstream industry. The programme was carefully planned to cover all aspects of the industry. It looked vertically through the supply chain and covered refining, pipelines, distribution terminals, and retail outlets. It embraced all sectors of the industry from the majors, and hypermarkets through mid-size players to smaller retailers. It extended throughout the UK covering locations in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Throughout the process, DTI has worked closely with Action 2000, other responsible bodies and the various trade bodies to ensure nothing was overlooked and ensure that the process adopted reflected good year 2000 practice.

  At the National Infrastructure Forum meeting in January 1999, the industry attracted an overall "amber" assessment against the standard colour code adopted by Action 2000. I am pleased to report that WS Atkins have confirmed that the industry has since then made substantial progress both onshore and offshore, and has now attained 100 per cent. "blue" status. A copy of their summary reports has been placed in the Libraries of the House, and copies made available on the DTI internet site. WS Atkins have also confirmed that the validation process adopted by DTI provides an effective means of independently validating the industry's state of progress,
  612
  both in terms of its suitability to the offshore/onshore sector, and general good practice in relation to year 2000 risk assessment.

  In detail WS Atkins have awarded 100 per cent. "blue" status in respect of the upstream sector which covers firms engaged in the production and transport to shore of oil and gas, and related gas interconnectors. 100 per cent. "blue" status was also attained by those companies assessed in the downstream oil sector. The assessed companies are responsible for over 90 per cent. Of UK oil supplies and cover the receipt, refining, distribution and retail of oil products.

  The DTI has agreed a follow up plan with WS Atkins, to continue to monitor progress and carry out a further independent check visits to monitor the industry's ongoing readiness throughout the millennium period.

  Regarding coal, the Department is responsible for supplying concessionary fuel to some 90,000 former employees of British Coal. This accounts for 20-25 per cent. of all solid fuel for domestic use. Currently, two large coal companies are under contract to DTI for the supply and distribution of concessionary fuel (CPL Distribution Ltd. and T. H. Fergusson).

  The Department appointed Aon Risk Services Ltd. (risk management consultants) to assess the security of supply of concessionary fuel over the millennium period. This covered the fuel distributors as well as a number of major producers. In addition, Aon was asked to advise on the position in the wider retail market for household coal in so far that the same systems are used by the companies under contract to DTI for distributing concessionary supplies. Aon's conclusions are equally encouraging with all the main operators now assessed as achieving 100 per cent. blue rating. Aon will be involved in continued monitoring of the position.

  Gas and Electricity Regulation
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's response to consultation on proposals to reform the system of gas and electricity regulation, and on his plans to assess the regulatory, environmental and equal treatment impact of the proposed Utilities Bill as a whole. [95429]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In October last year, the Government published a consultation paper on their proposals for reforming the system of gas and electricity regulation. After considering the responses, I have published a document which sets out the Government's proposals on the issues raised ("The Future of Gas and Electricity Regulation: The Government's Proposals for Legislation", DTI, 13 October 1999, ref. URN 99/1049). These proposals will form part of the Utilities Bill which the Government intend to introduce when parliamentary time permits.

  My Department has also published draft regulatory impact, environmental and equal treatment appraisals of the provisions to be sought in the Utilities Bill, requesting comments by 15 November.

  Copies of the documents have been placed in the Library of the House, as has a list of the names of those who responded to the consultation document and who

  613
  were content for their names and views to be made public. The responses themselves, with the exception of those from parties who made a request for confidentiality, have been placed in the library of the Department of Trade and Industry, where they are available for inspection.

  Subsidence Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the Coal Authority's Fifth report on the administration of the Coal-Mining Subsidence Damage Repair and Compensation scheme. [95431]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have now received this report from the Coal Authority and have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  Employment Relations Act 1999
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which sections of the Employment Relations Act 1999 have been implemented and on what date; and what is the timetable for the remaining sections. [94791]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The first commencement order (S.I. 1999/2509) for the Act was made on 8 September, bringing sections 38 and 42 into force on 9 September and section 18(6) on 30 September.

  The second commencement order (S.I. 1999/2830) was made on 14 October. Under it, sections 2, 3, 13(1) to (3), 18(1) to (5), 19 to 23, 26 to 33, 34(4), 35, 36(1) (in part), 37, 39, 40 and 43, Schedules 2 and 6 and paragraphs 1, 2, 5 (in part), 6 and 8 of Schedule 7 will come into force on 25 October and sections 7 to 9 and Schedule 4 will come into force on 15 December. The corresponding provisions of section 44 and Schedule 9 (repeals) will come into force on 25 October or 15 December as appropriate.

  It is intended that the remaining provisions in the Act should be brought into force over the coming year, including, by Easter, new rules on industrial action ballots and notices (section 4 and Schedule 3), new protections for unfairly dismissed strikers (section 16 and Schedule 5) and better access for national security staff to employment tribunals (section 41 and Schedule 8), and, shortly thereafter, the new right to be accompanied in disciplinary and grievance hearings (sections 10 to 15) and the statutory trade union recognition scheme and associated provisions (sections 1, 5, 6 and 25 and Schedule 1).

  Raventhorpe Power Station
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on ABB Energy Development Co Ltd's application to construct and operate a combined cycle gas turbine power station at Raventhorpe, Scunthorpe. [95428]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today decided to give a direction under section 14(3) of the Energy Act 1976 to prevent the building of a 450 MW generating station to be fuelled by natural gas at Raventhorpe, Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire.

  Copies of the press notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the next analysis in the Households Below Average Income series. [94700]

  Angela Eagle
  Results to 1997–98 were published on 14 October and copies have been placed in the Library.

  We hope to publish the next edition in the summer of 2000.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the titles of the in-house publications and newsletters which were produced for the staff of his Department, excluding non-departmental public bodies and agencies, in the last five years, specifying the dates on which each title was first produced, the frequency with which each title is produced and the current secrecy classification of each title. [93847]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is as follows:
  "The Quarterly"; forerunner of "DSS News". First produced Autumn 1991, (ceased publication 1998), was issued quarterly."DSS News"; information for staff on current Departmental issues—input from Ministers and Permanent Secretary. First produced April 1998 and issued every two months."Leisure"; sports and social information on recreational events/activities for DH/DSS staff. First produced pre 1994 and issued monthly."The Weekly"; staff vacancies and moves, personnel issues, general issues affecting staff. First produced in current format pre 1994 and issued weekly."Cascade"; single information sheet issued by senior officials to inform staff of current policy or personnel issues. First produced 1998 and issued on an ad hoc basis as and when needed."Network" (now renamed "Oracle"); update by senior official on policy issues for staff in policy branches. First produced 1997 (ceased publication 1999). Issued monthly.
  None of these publications carries a protective security marking.

  In addition to those listed, individual branches may, from time to time, issue newsletters to their own staff. These have limited circulation and would not be distributed generally. Letters may also be issued to staff from time to time on an ad hoc basis on issues affecting staff.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to announce the outcome of the annual review of the cold weather payments scheme; and if he will make a statement. [95495]

  Angela Eagle
  Following advice from the Meteorological Office, the annual review of the Cold Weather Payments scheme has now been completed. Amending regulations were laid on 11 October 1999 and will come into force on 1 November, in time for the beginning of the winter period.

  Four of the weather stations used in the scheme last winter have been replaced. Abbotsinch (Glasgow Airport), Turnhouse (Edinburgh Airport), Portland and

  615
  Southampton. They will be replaced respectively by the stations at Bishopton, Edinburgh Gogarbank, Isle of Portland and Thorney Island. Thorney Island is an existing weather station which is already used in the scheme. In addition, a station at Lake Vyrnwy in North Wales has been added to the scheme to improve representation in that area. There have also been some changes by Royal Mail to postcodes which have been reflected in the amending regulations.

  Cold weather payments are separate from, and in addition to, winter fuel payments which are paid only to pensioners.

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

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Public Lending Right
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many authors have received their maximum entitlement from the Public Lending Right. [94457]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In the last financial year, 1998–99, 100 authors received the maximum entitlement of £6,000 from the Public Lending Right.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment he has made of the operation of the Public Lending Right. [94455]

  (2) what plans he has to increase funding of the Public Lending Right. [94456]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are currently considering a range of proposals, following a review of the scheme by the Public Lending Right's Advisory Committee. We will be consulting on our response to the review very shortly. The Department greatly values the Public Lending Right scheme and last year found extra funding to maintain the rate per loan. We have also provided increases in funding for the next three years and are currently consulting on an increase in the rate per loan from £2.07 to £2.18. However, we have no plans at present to raise further the allocation to the Public Lending Right. Any bid for increased funding would need to be considered alongside the Department's other programmes.

  Digital Terrestrial Signals
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of relay stations which will require alteration to deliver digital terrestrial signals to 95 per cent. of households. [94445]

  Janet Anderson
  The Independent Television Commission and the BBC are jointly responsible for the provision of digital terrestrial television services in the UK. They are considering, in consultation with the digital broadcasters, the Government, and other interested parties, how to develop the coverage of digital television throughout the UK so that the 99.4 per cent. of consumers who currently receive analogue television can receive the main free-to-air channels digitally.
  616
  No estimate is yet available of the number of relay stations which may be required in respect of digital terrestrial signals. The Government have indicated separately that they want to make sure that 95 per cent. of consumers have access to digital equipment before analogue switch-over is completed.

  PFA Annual Dinner
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to attend the next Professional Footballers' Association annual dinner; and if he will make a statement on his policy in relation to(a) his attendance and (b) his officials' attendance at future PFA social occasions. [94384]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: Since the last general election no DCMS Minister or official has attended the PFA annual awards dinner. My Department has not yet received any invitations for future PFA social events to date.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) the reports published by her Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by her Department, (c) the decisions her Department has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria she uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93980]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 19 October 1999,Official Report, column 429.

  Montreal Conference
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from the Like-Minded Group on the forthcoming negotiations at the Extraordinary Conference of the Parties in Montreal in January 2000; and if he will make a statement. [94870]

  Clare Short
  I have not received any representations from the like-minded group of 120 developing countries on the forthcoming negotiations in Montreal.

SCOTLAND

  Environment Protection Agency
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the third annual report of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will be published. [95459]

  Dr. Reid
  The Scottish Environment Protection Agency published its Third Annual Report and Accounts today. The report contains details of the progress made by SEPA during the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999, the Agency's third year of operation. Copies of the Annual Report and Accounts have been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Funding
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will provide a breakdown of the running costs of his office to cover(a) staff salaries, (b) office accommodation, (c) residential accommodation, (d) administration and (e) others; and if he will make a statement; [94055]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the difference between the funds allocated to him by Parliament and the funds to be included in the Scottish Consolidated Fund for the years (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement; [94054]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the discussions he has had with the First Minister of the Scottish Executive on the proportion of the funds allocated to the Secretary of State for Scotland that he proposes to use to perform his duties. [940571

  Dr. Reid
  The provision for grant payable to the Scottish Consolidated Fund, other grants and the running cost provision for my Department are set out in the Estimates for Class XIII, Vote 1. Details for the current year were set out in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 412-13.

  I have since been reviewing the role and functions of my Department and I have discussed these matters with the First Minister on a number of occasions. I will make a further statement in due course. No decisions have yet been taken about the provision for the Scotland Office for future years.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for an improved level of telephone access for asylum seekers after the Immigration Service takes over responsibility for paying their benefit and responding to inquiries; and if he will make a statement. [93985]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Office will be responsible for providing support to asylum seekers under part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Bill (when enacted and implemented).

  Quantities of controlled drugs seized in the UK by police and Customs, and by the Merseyside Police Force, 1995–97

  1995

  UK police

  Customs

  Total

  Merseyside police

  Class A

  Cocaine

  63.5

  589.4

  652.9

  15.0

  Crack

  9.4

  9.8

  19.2

  0.1

  Heroin

  362.7

  1,031.8

  1,394.5

  66.6

  LSD

  352.0

  29.8

  381.8

  2.0

  Ecstasy-type

  475.8

  79.2

  555.0

  29.8

  Methadone

  50.7

  0.0

  50.7

  1.6

  Other

  11.7

  10.2

  21.9

  0.0

  Class B

  Cannabis (herbal)

  1,134.0

  12,737.5

  13,871.5

  53.8

  Cannabis plants

  96,208

  96

  96,304

  1,918

  Cannabis resin

  4,821.7

  39,776.2

  44,597.9

  344.0

  618
  Asylum seekers and their dependants who apply to the Asylum Support Directorate within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will, under the new arrangements, contact staff within the new Directorate for information and inquiries about support.

  We propose to have a single inquiry number for the new Asylum Support Directorate. The service provided will incorporate assisted call routing facilities to minimise the likelihood of calls being re-routed.

  The number will be publicised and known to agencies with whom potential applicants may have contact prior to making a support application.

  Callers requiring application forms will be asked to leave mailing details. Callers who need to speak directly with the caseworker responsible for their support will be able to do so.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the proposed offices the Immigration Service will operate to deal with asylum seekers benefit and inquiries; what hours they will be open; what estimate he has made of(a) the average and (b) the farthest distance an asylum seeker is likely to have to travel to the nearest office; and if he will make a statement. [93983]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Asylum Support Directorate will be located in Quest House and possibly other accommodation in Croydon. Quest House will have a public caller unit to enable asylum seekers, who would otherwise be destitute, to seek support. But the Asylum Support Directorate proposes to grant fund the voluntary sector to arrange for them to provide reception centres at some major ports and at one-stop shops around the country. The locations and opening times of these centres have yet to be determined.

  Drugs
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what amount of drugs has been taken out of circulation in each year since 1995 within the UK, by type; [94519]

  (2) what amount of drugs have been taken out of circulation annually in Merseyside since 1995, by type. [94520]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is given in the table, which covers the period 1995–1997, the latest for which date are available. It is hoped to publish 1998 figures by the end of the year.
  619

  Quantities of controlled drugs seized in the UK by police and Customs, and by the Merseyside Police Force, 1995–97

  1995

  UK police

  Customs

  Total

  Merseyside police

  Cannabis liquid

  2.9

  2.7

  5.6

  0.0

  Amphetamines

  447.1

  372.2

  819.3

  11.4

  Other

  0.4

  0.9

  1.3

  0.0

  Class C

  Benzodiazepines

  4.8

  0.0

  4.8

  0.0

  Temazepam

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  Anabolic Steroids

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  0.6

  0.0

  0.6

  0.0

  Class unknown

  8.6

  0.0

  8.6

  0.0

  1996

  UK police

  Customs

  Total

  Merseyside police

  Class A

  Cocaine

  55.4

  1,155.6

  1,211.0

  1.1

  Crack

  6.3

  2.0

  8.3

  0.0

  Heroin

  329.1

  741.0

  1,070.1

  5.1

  LSD

  98.1

  118.4

  216.5

  0.7

  Ecstasy-type

  946.9

  4,851.1

  5,798.0

  24.1

  Methadone

  87.4

  0.0

  87.4

  2.3

  Other

  32.7

  12.4

  45.1

  0.0

  Class B

  Cannabis (herbal)

  3,838.4

  30,535.9

  34,374.3

  32.5

  Cannabis plants

  115,746

  472

  116,218

  4,053

  Cannabis resin

  20,799.3

  46,137.4

  66,936.7

  116.1

  Cannabis liquid

  1.4

  16.2

  17.6

  0.0

  Amphetamines

  1,783.9

  840.8

  2,624.7

  22.6

  Other

  1.5

  0.0

  1.5

  0.0

  Class C

  Benzodiazepines

  2.3

  0.0

  2.3

  0.0

  Temazepam

  3.6

  1.8

  5.4

  0.0

  Anabolic Steroids

  3.0

  0.8

  3.8

  0.0

  Other

  51.4

  2.0

  53.4

  0.0

  Class unknown

  1.1

  3.3

  4.4

  0.0

  1997

  UK police

  Customs

  Total

  Merseyside police

  Class A

  Cocaine

  279.0

  2,071.2

  2,350.2

  3.3

  Crack

  31.4

  2.1

  33.5

  2.3

  Heroin

  488.7

  1,747.2

  2,235.9

  8.6

  LSD

  162.4

  1.7

  164.1

  3.1

  Ecstasy-type

  4,643.7

  1,461.1

  6,104.8

  14.0

  Methadone

  115.8

  1.5

  117.3

  3.0

  Other

  13.2

  18.1

  31.3

  1.0

  Class B

  Cannabis (herbal)

  8,289.8

  22,830.4

  31,120.2

  31.1

  Cannabis plants

  114,948

  40

  114,988

  454

  Cannabis resin

  64,824.2

  54,025.0

  118,849.2

  612.6

  Cannabis liquid

  1.8

  24.8

  26.6

  0.5

  Amphetamines

  2,360.6

  935.1

  3,295.7

  21.2

  Other

  2.4

  0.0

  2.4

  0.0

  Class C

  Benzodiazepines

  2.0

  0.1

  2.1

  0.0

  Temazepam

  4.0

  0.0

  4.0

  0.0

  Anabolic Steroids

  7.1

  448.4

  455.5

  0.0

  Other

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Class unknown

  4.9

  3.0

  7.9

  0.0

  Notes:

  1. All quantities are in kilograms except for LSD and Ecstasy-type (thousands of doses) and cannabis plants (number of plants).

  2. Anabolic steroids became controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 on 1 September 1996.

  3. Figures for 1998 will not be available until the end of the year.

  Source:

  Drug Research and Statistics Section, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate
  620

  Walton Prison
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what remedial assistance people who are convicted and imprisoned of a drug-related crime obtain in Walton Prison. [94518]

  Mr. Boateng
  All prisoners received into Liverpool prison, known locally as Walton, are screened in relation to drug abuse, regardless of the nature of their offences. Those in need of detoxification are prescribed medication appropriate to their clinical needs, and if necessary located in the health care centre. They are referred to the prison drug clinic the day following reception.

  The prison has a designated wing which offers a 12-week programme of education, physical education and group work for prisoners with a substance abuse problem. Prisoners must remain drug free to participate in the programme. Individual counselling is also available.

  Each residential wing has a drug liaison officer who works with specialist support providers to offer counselling, advice and support to enable prisoners to remain drug free.

  The establishment has a throughcare team, seconded from a local drug agency, to offer support and advice and to help place prisoners with drug support agencies on release.

  Cyber Crime
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress made towards agreeing a Council of Europe Convention on Cyber Crime. [94129]

  Mr. Boateng
  Proposals for a Convention have been prepared by a Committee of Experts drawn from 16 member states of the Council of Europe. Experts from a number of other states, including the United Kingdom, attend as observers and in practice participate fully in the discussions.

  The Committee, which began its work in September 1997, was due to conclude at the end of this year but, due to the complexity of the issues, its remit has been extended until December 2000. The Committee's proposals, when completed, will be referred for consideration to the European Committee on Crime Problems, on which all member states at the Council of Europe are represented. The Convention will ultimately be referred for adoption to the Committee of Ministers.

  The Committee of Experts is examining draft provisions which would:
  require state parties to ensure that their criminal law includes offences against the integrity, confidentiality and availability of computer data; copyright and related offences; and content related offences such as the possession and distribution via the internet of child pornography;minimise the problem of negative jurisdiction conflicts, where perpetrators of computer crime escape prosecution because the conduct and the mischief it causes occur in different jurisdictions;put in place arrangements for expedited mutual legal assistance between state parties, where delay risks the loss of vulnerable data required as evidence of computer crime. This includes a proposal that state parties should be able to request or require 622 data holders to preserve for a short period information required as evidence for a domestic or foreign criminal proceeding, while aproduction order is obtained from a judicial authority;and provide for extradition of persons accused of computer and internet related offences.
  The committee is also discussing whether to propose the inclusion of measures to facilitate co-operation between state parties on the tracing, interception or decryption of internet-related communications relating to criminal activity on the internet.

  The Government have been taking advice on a number of the issues from the Forum established by the Association of Chief Police Officers with representatives of internet service providers (known as the ACPO/ Government/ISP Forum).

  Harassment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were prosecuted for harassment between September 1998 and May 1999; and if he will make a statement on the working of the Protection from Harassment Act 1996. [94389]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available data from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, covering the period from September 1998 to March 1999 inclusive, are given in the table. Provisional data for the second quarter of this year will not be available until December.

  A research project to assess the use and effectiveness of the Protection from Harassment Act 1996 is in progress. A report is expected to be published at the beginning of next year.

  Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts for offences under s2 and s4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, England and Wales, September 1998 to March 19991

  Offence

  September 1998 to March 1999

  Section 2—Offence of harassment (summary)

  2,918

  Section 4—Putting people in fear of violence

  888

  1All data are provisional

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the reports published by his Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by his Department, (c) the decisions his Department has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria he uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93969]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer to the reply given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons on 19 October 1999,Official Report, columns 429-30.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the titles of the in-house publications and newsletters which were produced for the staff of his Department, excluding nondepartmental public bodies and agencies, in the last
  623
  five years, specifying the dates on which each title was first produced, the frequency with which each title is produced and the current secrecy classification of each title. [93845]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office produces a range of in-house publications and newsletters for its staff, falling into the broad categories shown. All of the items in this list are, or were, made available to all or most Home Office staff. Not included in the list are items with a limited distribution or covering specialist areas.

  None of these publications had, or has, a secrecy classification.

  Newsletters

  Title

  Date first produced

  Frequency of issue

  Inside Track

  October 1995

  10 issues a year

  HO.tline

  July 1998

  fortnightly

  In Touch

  July 1998

  ad hoc

  Home Office Review1

  July 1995

  13 issues to August 1996

  Home Office Bulletin1

  March 1991 to July 1995

  monthly

  Personnel News1

  January 1995

  ad hoc

  IT@Home Office1

  January 1996

  quarterly

  POISE newsletter1

  March 1994

  monthly

  1 These items have ceased publication

  In addition, the Home Office produces a wide range of office notices and guidance for staff, which is updated as necessary.

  Many people now receive their Home Office notices and some other professional guidance electronically through HORIZON, the Home Office intranet, or through disks copied onto their own networks. Only people who do not have access to a network will receive hard copies, which saves on printing costs.

  Over 3,500 staff in the Home Office's central estate, at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Croydon, and at some outstations now have access to HORIZON.

  Guidance on the Code of Practice on Access to Official Information has been made available to all staff in the Home Office notice on Open Government featured in the list, and further information is available on HORIZON and on the internet.

  Benzodiazepine
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to review the classification of benzodiazepine drugs; [93721]

  (2) what action he is taking to prevent the illegal trade of benzodiazepine drugs. [93720]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The benzodiazepine drugs are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as Class C drugs. They have licit uses as medicines and are subject to controls on their production and supply. They are currently exempted, however, from controls on their import, export and on their possession unless in base form.

  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) which advises the Government on drug misuse issues reviewed the controls on, and misuse of, these drugs last year. It recommended that additional controls
  624
  should be introduced on their import, export and possession. The Government are actively considering the Advisory Council's recommendations.

  LD50 Test
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on abolishing the LD50 test. [95670]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We will vary, or revoke, any licence which authorises the use of the LD50 test (as defined by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guideline 401) and which was issued since 5 September 1998. On this date, amendments to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 came into effect.

  We have accepted legal advice that Section 5(5) of the Act as amended does not allow licensing of the LD50 test for the purpose of meeting international regulatory requirements. The general principle is that a test will be licensed only where there is no scientifically valid and reasonably practicable and accepted alternative.

  In accord with this principle, we will also review all authorities to use the LD50 test in licences issued before September 1998.

  Freedom of Information Bill
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to make available the responses to the public consultation on the draft Freedom of Information Bill. [95671]

  Mr. Straw
  I have placed copies in the Library today, where they will be held for six months. I intend to announce tomorrow the changes to the draft Freedom of Information Bill which arise from the Government's response to the consultation exercise and pre-legislative scrutiny.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were recruited to police forces in England and Wales in each of the last three years for which figures are available and in total for the period; and if he will make a statement. [94767]

  Mr. Straw
  The total number of police officers recruited by police forces in England and Wales in each of the last three years are:

  Year

  Number

  1996–97

  6,450

  1997–98

  6,543

  1998–99

  5,391

  Total

  18,384

  These figures include transfers between forces and have been supplied by the Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate.
  625
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are planned to be recruited to police forces in England and Wales in each of the next three years and in total for the period; and if he will make a statement. [94768]

  Mr. Straw
  In my announcement on 30 September about the Crime Fighting Fund, the planning estimate I used was 11,000 recruits over the next three years. The basis of this estimate is currently being examined. I shall report the outcome to the House as soon as possible. We shall shortly be asking forces for detailed estimates of their planned recruitment over the next three years in order to assess their bids for money from the Crime Fighting Fund.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers retired, resigned or were dismissed from police forces in England and Wales in each of the last three years for which figures are available and in total for the period; and if he will make a statement. [94769]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Total wastage for all police forces in England and Wales from 1996–97 to 1998–991 (all figures obtained from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Retirements1

  4,478

  4,807

  4,204

  Resignations

  739

  924

  1,189

  Dismissals

  126

  154

  176

  Total

  5,343

  5,885

  5,569

  1 Covers both ordinary retirements and ill health retirements

  Case Record and Management System
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement concerning progress on implementing the information technology Case Record and Management System in the probation service; [94771]

  (2) how many probation services currently use the Case Record and Management System; and if he will make a statement. [94774]

  Mr. Boateng
  Forty-four probation services are currently using Case Record and Management System. Of these:Six are currently training their staff to use it;
  Twenty-seven use it and classify themselves as fully dependent on it; and
  Eleven classify themselves as partially dependent on it (they are using only some functions or it has only been deployed to some of their offices).

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to replace the Case Record and Management System with an alternative information technology system; if a tender has been put out for an alternative system to CRAMS; and if he will make a statement. [94772]
  626
  Mr. Boateng
  Case Record and Management System now needs to be re-developed in order better to support the modernisation of the probation service, including important developments such as the evidence-based programmes to reduce the likelihood of re-offending, the new joint probation-prisons offender assessment system (OASys), and the new National Standards for the supervision of offenders. Its successor will also need to facilitate connections to other parts of the criminal justice system and the time is now right to take advantage of the further advances in information technology.

  A user requirement is currently being developed and the work will be put out to tender in due course.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost to date of developing and implementing the Case Record and Management System in the probation service; what was the original expected cost of the system; and if he will make a statement. [94773]

  Mr. Boateng
  There have been four major release versions of Case Record and Management System. The total development cost of these was £3.2 million which is in line with original estimates. The total implementation cost of the four versions was £1.4 million. This is £300,000 more than the estimated cost of implementation, largely for reasons of Year 2000 compliance.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a year 2000 compliant version of the Case Record and Management System has been made available to probation services; how many probation services are using such a system; and if he will make a statement. [94775]

  Mr. Boateng
  A year 2000 complaint version of Case Record and Management System is currently being rolled out to probation services. The rollout is on schedule and by the end of this week 26 probation services will have it. The rollout is due to be completed by 17 November.

HEALTH

  Drugs
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the health trusts in Lancashire with regard to the availability of drugs through the NHS; and what discussions he has held with them. [94186]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]We have received no such representations, neither have we discussed the matter with any of the trusts concerned.

  Dentists
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of NHS dentists by region in each year since 1995. [94316]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table sets out the number of National Health Service dentists providing treatment under the NHS in the General Dental Service, Salaried Dental Service, Hospital Dental Service and Community Dental Service by region in England at 30 September each year.
  627

  The number of general1, salaried2, community3 and hospital dental service3 dentists by health region, England

  30 September

  Health regions

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  England

  19,563

  19,978

  20,484

  21,041

  Northern and Yorkshire

  2,513

  2,427

  2,479

  2,532

  Trent

  1,615

  1,704

  1,801

  1,820

  Anglia and Oxford

  1,936

  1,983

  2,088

  2,152

  North Thames

  2,997

  3,097

  3,286

  3,406

  South Thames

  3,238

  3,308

  3,312

  3,348

  South and West

  2,711

  2,748

  2,823

  2,985

  West Midlands

  1,842

  1,863

  1,939

  1,982

  North West

  2,630

  2,737

  2,778

  2,836

  1 GDS dentists include principals, assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  2 Salaried dentists are those in post as reported by HAs; 1995 figures are for the Number of contracts.

  3 Dentists are counted in each region in which they work. The figures include some double counting as a dentist may practise in more than one of the dental services. This explains the apparent disparity between the sums of regions and England totals.

  World Mental Health Day
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's contribution to World Mental Health Day on 10 October. [94354]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has continued to support the World Mental Health Day campaign co-ordinated by the Health Education Authority. We have allocated £1 million in 1999 to support the campaign, an increase of 57 per cent. over last year. The campaign is an important element of our strategy to challenge discrimination and promote participation and inclusion as key positive steps for mental well being.

  Commission for Health Improvement
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the costs of establishing the Commission for Health Improvement. [93917]

  Mr. Denham
  The budget for the Commission for Health Improvement in 1999–2000 is £3 million. This money will be spent on the establishment and early development of the commission and will cover various costs including accommodation, staff recruitment and training, and the development of methodologies.

  Drug Prices
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which drugs will be reduced in price and by how much, consequent upon his agreement with NHS suppliers. [94029]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the 1999 Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme agreed with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, companies supplying branded medicines to the National Health Service to a value of more than £1 million per annum are required to reduce their prices by 4.5 per cent. from 1 October 1999. As an alternative to an across the board reduction, they are allowed to modulate the prices of these medicines by reductions that equate to an overall level of 4.5 per cent. Companies themselves decide on a commercial basis which medicines should be reduced in price and by how much and supply this information to the Prescription 628
  Pricing Authority. The Department monitors the sales of medicines to determine whether the modulation have achieved the necessary reduction.

  A list of the price reductions notified to the Department at the outset of the scheme has been placed in the Library. It should be noted that companies can remodulate their prices following the initial reduction. Up to date information on the prices of medicines is maintained in the pharmaceutical trade press, copies of which are in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK service men and service women were serving or were based in Sierra Leone on 1 September, including those serving on UK warships within the territorial waters of Sierra Leone; and if he will list(a) their units and (b) the units to which they were attached. [94618]

  Mr. Spellar
  There were 25 UK service personnel deployed to Sierra Leone on 1 September 1999, and were drawn from the following units:

  HQ (London District)

  HQ Royal Marines

  39 Regiment Royal Artillery

  3 Staffords

  9/12 Lancers

  RAF St. Mawgan

  RAF Innsworth

  Coldstream Guards

  Army Cookery School

  Royal Marines

  Royal Scots

  East of England Regiment

  Scots Guards

  City of Edinburgh University Officer Training Corps

  4 Royal Green Jackets (Volunteers)/Royal Irish

  Prince of Wales Royal Regiment

  Royal Highland Fusiliers.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom service men and service women have served or been based in Sierra Leone since the beginning of the summer Adjournment; and to which military units(a) they belong and (b) they were attached. [94617]

  Mr. Spellar
  Forty eight UK military personnel have deployed to Sierra Leone since 28 July 1999, of which 27 remain.
  629
  Personnel have been drawn from the following units:

  Permanent Joint Headquarters

  HQ London District

  HQ Royal Marines

  39 Regiment Royal Artillery

  3 Staffordshire Regiment

  9/12 Lancers

  RAF St. Mawgan

  RAF Innsworth

  Coldstream Guards

  Army Cookery School

  Irish Guards

  RAF High Wycombe

  RAF Linton on Ouse

  Commando Training Centre

  RM Royal Marine Reserve Bristol

  Royal Marines

  Royal Scots

  East of England Regiment

  Scots Guards

  City of Edinburgh University Officer Training Corps

  Royal Green Jackets (Volunteers)/Royal Irish

  Prince of Wales Royal Regiment

  Royal Highland Fusiliers

  Devon and Dorset

  Royal Anglian

  Parachute Regiment

  Royal Signals

  HQ Strike Command.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK service men and service women were(a) detained, (b) disarmed and (c) kidnapped by rebels, irregulars and other military units in Sierra Leone during August; and if he will state the names of their units and the names of units to which they were attached in each case. [94619]

  Mr. Spellar
  Seven UK military officers serving with UNOMSIL were abducted in early August. They were from the following units:

  HQ London District

  HQ Royal Marines

  9/12 Lancers

  39 Regiment Royal Artillery

  Coldstream Guards

  3 Staffordshire Regiment

  RAF Innsworth.

  In two subsequent and separate incidents, a UK military observer attached to UNOMSIL was briefly detained. One was from RAF Innsworth, and the other from 39 Regiment Royal Artillery.

  All personnel were released unharmed.

  UNOMSIL military observers are unarmed.

  Personnel
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the cost of providing 630
  accommodation and infrastructure for his Department's personnel relocated from Germany to the United Kingdom under the terms of the Strategic Defence Review. [94151]

  Mr. Hoon
  The current estimate of the cost of providing accommodation and infrastructure for personnel relocating from Germany to the United Kingdom under the SDR is of the order of £150 million. The cost of the programme will be spread over seven years. I expect that a proportion of the works will be delivered through Public Private Partnership. Once withdrawal is complete, I expect operating cost savings of some £13 million a year.

PRIME MINISTER

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Prime Minister what future projects are planned for the Performance and Innovation Unit. [95073]

  The Prime Minister
  The Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) was established to improve the capacity of Government to identify and address strategic cross-cutting issues and promote innovation in the development of policy and in the delivery of the Government's objectives. The PIU project teams are drawn from both inside and outside Government, to ensure new thinking and a wide range of experience is brought to bear on the issues. Their reports make an important contribution to policy making.

  Further to the work announced in December 1998, the Modernising Government White Paper in March 1999 announced that the PIU is undertaking a project aimed at identifying the long-term strategic challenges facing Government. I have now asked the PIU to take on the following further projects:

  The Pursuit and Seizure of Criminal Assets
  To consider the role that following the money trail and seizing criminal assets can play in the fight against crime and how to maximise the effective use of these tools. My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), Minister of State, Cabinet Office is the sponsor Minister for this project.
  The Post Office network
  To identify the contribution made by post offices to the vitality of local communities, consider how the Post Office network can best contribute to the Government's objectives in the future and in the process formulate objectives for the Post Office network. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), Minister of State, Home Office is the sponsor Minister.
  Social, Health, Environmental and Trade Objectives on the Global Stage
  To identify a coherent set of principles for comparing trade measures with other national and international measures for addressing social, health and environmental objectives. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), Minister of State, Scotland Office is the sponsor Minister.
  The Use of Analysis and Modelling in Central Government
  To review Departments' capabilities for quantitative analysis and modelling in key areas of Government policy, including access to and the use made of data, to identify strengths and weaknesses and make cost-effective recommendations for change.
  The aim is to complete the first three projects next spring and the last by the end of the year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Plutonium
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement in respect of the international safety implications arising from the plutonium shipment involving the Pacific Teal and the Pacific Pintail. [94716]

  Mr. Hain
  The shipment of MOX fuel to Japan was undertaken in full conformity with well established international non-proliferation safeguard procedures and physical protection regimes. In terms of the measures taken to minimise the risk of radiological accidents all shipments by sea are undertaken in full compliance with all the relevant international standards, regulations and recommendations relating to the transport by sea of hazardous cargoes and nuclear materials. The ships and containers used for this shipment met, and in certain cases exceeded, these requirements.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current political and military situation in Sierra Leone. [94616]

  Mr. Hain
  There has been clear and welcome progress in recent months in the peace process in Sierra Leone. The overall security situation, however, remains volatile.

  We welcome the signing of a Peace Agreement by the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front in Lomé on 7 July. The Agreement offers the people of Sierra Leone the real prospect of a sustainable peace. We support the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation to Sierra Leone.

  We expect all parties to honour the agreement and the accompanying ceasefire, and to implement these fully. An important first step will be early progress on the Disarmament, Demobilisations and Reintegration programme for former combatants.

  We welcome the return to Freetown on 3 October of Foday Sankoh, the leader of the RUF, and Johnny Paul Koroma, the leader for the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council. This is an important step forward in the peace process.

  I gave further details of how we have implemented our £10 million package of assistance in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on 20 October 1999, Official Report, column 599.

  Small Arms Exports
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on policy towards the controlled export of small arms. [94141]

  Mr. Hain
  Pursuing a responsible and transparent policy on legal transfers of small arms from the UK, and encouraging other arms exporting countries to do likewise, is one of the main elements of our approach to combatting the problem of small arms proliferation.
  632
  All licence applications to export goods and technology on the UK Military List, including small arms, are assessed on a case-by-case basis against our national export licensing criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. If there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression or international aggression, or would provoke, prolong or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts in the destination country, the application is refused. We also carefully consider the risk of the goods being diverted to an undesirable end-user and the effect of the proposed export on regional stability.

  We have encouraged non EU-member states to respect the principles of the EU Code of Conduct in their exports of military equipment, including small arms. We have also supported moves to address the issue of legal exports of small arms in the Wassenaar Arrangement for Export Controls on Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods.

  The EU Joint Action on Small Arms of December 1998 commits the UK and other member states to work for international acceptance of the principle that small arms specially designed for military use should be exported only to governments.

  India
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet with Ms Maneka Gandhi of the Ministry of Welfare in India, and Shri I. P. Gupta, Lieutenant Governor of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, to discuss the Jarawa people. [94391]

  Mr. Hain
  FCO Ministers have no plans to meet Ms Maneka Gandhi or Shri I. P. Gupta.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with the Indian Government regarding the reserve for Jarawa people on the Andaman Islands; and if he will make a statement. [94392]

  Mr. Hain
  We are aware of reports regarding the Jarawa people of the Andaman Islands and plans for their resettlement. We understand that these are the subject of an individual's application to the High Court of Calcutta (on which judgment has yet to be delivered). We have not discussed these plans with the Indian Government.

  Iran
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has(a) made and (b) proposes to make on the forthcoming visit of the Iranian Foreign Minister to the UK and (c) on his forthcoming visit to Iran concerning the position of the 13 Iranian Jews detained in Iran on alleged spying charges; and if he will make a statement. [94411]

  Mr. Hain
  We and our EU partners have pressed the Iranian authorities over this case and will continue to do so. As long ago as 20 May the German EU Presidency expressed concern at these detentions on behalf of EU member states, and a formal EU demarche to the Iranian government took place on 30 June.

  We have also told the Iranians of our concern bilaterally, both in Tehran and in London. We have pressed for a fair and open trial, and access for visitors and legal representatives. We have also pressed for access

  633
  for independent observers at any trial. Most recently the Foreign Secretary made these points to the Iranian Ambassador on 29 July. I reiterated them to him on 4 August. The Foreign Secretary also pressed Foreign Minister Kharrazi on this issue during their meeting at the United Nations General Assembly on 21 September. Our Ambassador in Tehran has spoken similarly to the Iranian authorities there.

  Neither the agenda for the Secretary of State's visit to Iran, nor Foreign Minister Kharrazi's visit here, have yet been decided. Should this issue still not be resolved, we will raise it again.

  Burma
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken following the imprisonment of James Mawdsley and Rachel Goldwyn in Burma; and if he will make a statement. [94606]

  Mr. Hain
  We have expressed our concerns to the Burmese authorities about the handling of these cases. Consular staff have visited James and Rachel; both confirmed they were well and had not been ill-treated. We will continue to visit regularly and stay in close touch with families. We have done and will continue to do everything we properly can to help.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the next meeting on the Biosafety Protocol will take place; what preparations are being made by his Department for input into the EU position; and if he will make a statement. [94827]

  Mr. Hain
  The resumed extra-ordinary conference of the Parties on Biosafety Protocol will take place in Montreal on 24-28 January 2000. My Department is working closely with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and other Government Departments in assessing the options put forward by other negotiating groups in the informal consultations in Vienna. Our posts are also active in feeding in information on developments in other countries for consideration in discussion with EU partners.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects of the Extraordinary Conference of the parties meeting in Montreal under the auspices of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity in January 2000 concluding the Biosafety Protocol. [94869]

  Mr. Hain
  Early agreement of a workable and effective Biosafety Protocol is an important objective for this Government. We welcomed the decision made by Minister Mayr to resume the extra-ordinary Conference of the parties to agree the Protocol and particularly the strong political commitment to complete the Protocol expressed by all negotiating groups at the informal consultations in September. Hard work is still needed to come to final agreement on the outstanding issues to be covered under the Protocol. We will be making every effort to promote successful completion of the negotiations.

  Sanctions
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list changes to sanctions regimes implemented by the UK since 26 July. [95494]

  Mr. Hain
  New measures have been introduced against Indonesia; certain measures against Libya have been lifted; and amendments have been made to measures in place against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Details are as follows:

  Indonesia
  On 16 September, the Council of the European Union adopted a Common Position (1999/624/CFSP) imposing restrictive measures against Indonesia. These measures are an embargo on the export of arms, munitions and military equipment; a ban on the supply of equipment which might be used for internal repression or terrorism; and the suspension of bilateral military cooperation.
  The embargo on the export of arms, munitions and military equipment is being applied to all goods and technology on the Military List which forms Part III of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended.
  The Common Position shall expire on 17 January 2000.
  Following from this Common Position, the EC adopted Regulation 2158/1999 on 11 October which prohibits:

  (a) the sale, supply, export or shipment, directly or indirectly, of equipment listed in an Annex to the Regulation, whether or not originating in the Community, to any person or body in the Republic of Indonesia or to any person or any body for the purpose of any business carried on in, or operated from, the territory of the Republic of Indonesia;

  (b) the participation in related activities the object of which is, directly or indirectly, to promote the transactions or activities referred to in (a) above.

  EU member states may authorise the transactions or activities referred to at (a) and (b) above in respect to certain items in the Annex when they have obtained conclusive evidence that the end use of these items is not for internal repression or terrorism.
  The Regulation applies within the territory of the Community including its air space and on board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a member state and to any person elsewhere who is a national of a member state and any body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a member state.
  The Regulation entered into force on 13 October and is directly applicable in the UK. Legislation has been introduced to provide for licensing and enforcement, including penalties. The Indonesia (Supply, Sale, Export and Shipment of Equipment) (Penalties and Licences) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2822) came into force on 14 October.
  The Regulation shall expire on 17 January 2000.

  Libya
  On 13 September, the Council of the European Union adopted a Common Position (1999/611/CFSP) lifting a number of EU sanctions against Libya which were imposed in 1986. These measures were restrictions on the freedom of movement of Libyan diplomats and consular personnel; the reduction of staff of diplomatic and consular missions; and stricter visa requirements and procedures. The EU arms embargo against Libya, also imposed in 1986, remains in force.
  635
  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY)
  On 3 September, the Council of the European Union adopted a Common Position (1999/604/CFSP) allowing exceptions to the EU oil embargo and flight ban in relation to Kosovo and Montenegro.Following from this Common Position, the EC adopted two Regulations.Regulation 2111/1999, adopted on 4 October, repeals and replaces Regulation 900/1999 prohibiting the sale and supply of petroleum and petroleum products to the FRY and provides for member states to authorise the sale, supply, export or shipment of such goods provided that the goods are shipped from the Community to Montenegro or Kosovo without transiting through other parts of Serbia and that the goods shall not leave the territory of Montenegro or Kosovo for any destination elsewhere in Serbia.The Regulation entered into force on 5 October and is directly applicable in the UK. Legislation has been introduced to provide for licensing and enforcement, including penalties. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Supply, Sale and Export of Petroleum and Petroleum Products) (Penalties and Licences) (No. 3) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2821) came into force on 14 October.Regulation 2151/1999, adopted on 11 October, repeals and replaces Regulation 1064/1999 imposing a ban on flights between the European Community and the FRY and provides for member states to authorise specified flights between the territories of the Community and Montenegro or Kosovo provided that the points of departure, intermediate points and points of final destination in the FRY are located only in Montenegro or Kosovo.The Regulation entered into force on 12 October and is directly applicable in the UK.

TREASURY

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93694]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The spending on official publications since May 1997—which includes the costs incurred by the Department in publishing, preparation, production and purchase of copies for official use—is estimated to be £1,040,000. This excludes the cost of publications produced for internal use. Where the Treasury makes use of a private sector publisher, printing and design costs are generally met by the publisher as part of their acceptance of the risk of publication.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Special Educational Needs Tribunal
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he proposes to undertake a review of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal. [95680]

  Jacqui Smith
  In accordance with the Government's policy of conducting quinquennial reviews of all non-departmental public bodies, the Department is launching today, in conjunction with the National Assembly for Wales, a review of the Special Educational 636
  Needs Tribunal. Following Cabinet office guidelines, the first stage of the review will take the form of a "prior options" study with the following terms of reference:
  to review the functions of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal, and the likely future need for those functions;
  to consider the powers, remit, constitutional status, membership and activities of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal;
  to consider whether, on efficiency grounds, some or all of the functions of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal can be carried out within an alternative organisational framework including by another public, private or voluntary body or otherwise within government;
  to review the efficiency and effectiveness of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal in carrying out its functions.
  The review will have particular regard to:
  the overriding objective that special educational provision should meet the needs of individual children; and
  compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998.

  We should welcome comments on those matters to be covered by the review from all those with an interest in the work of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal. Comments, which may be made public unless respondents specifically request otherwise, should be sent by 15 January 2000 to:

  Mrs. Susan Ashford

  Special Educational Needs Division

  Department for Education and Employment

  Sanctuary Buildings

  Great Smith Street

  Westminster

  London SW IP 3BT.

  The review should be completed by 29 April 2000. The findings will be published and made available to Parliament.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current(a) number and (b) value of loans to students which have not been repaid by their due date; and if he will make a statement. [94742]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The Student Loans Company has informed me that at 31 August 1999 167,716 student loans accounts were in arrears. The total value of the arrears at that date was £70,062,402. These figures are for the United Kingdom. These arrears arise from mortgage style loans taken out under the previous scheme. The new loan system where repayments are directly linked to a borrower's income after leaving university or college and are repaid through the Inland Revenue should result in lower levels of arrears.

  Graduation Test
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he will take to ensure the separate identification of those who graduate under the Social Exclusion Unit's concept of graduation at Level 2 and those who graduate after taking a degree. [94765]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The Government have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to develop and consult on the

  637
  options for a common objective obtainable by all young people which will encourage them to participate in learning beyond 16 and to achieve to at least a Level 2 standard, as recommended in the Social Exclusion Report, "Bridging the Gap". As part of its remit, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will consider, and consult upon, a name for such a certificate.

  Basic Skills Qualifications
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for national qualifications in basic skills for adults. [94763]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: Following the launch of "A Fresh Start", the report from Sir Claus Moser's working group on adult basic skills, the Government asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to develop national standards for adult literacy and numeracy at Entry Level and Levels 1 and 2. Draft standards will be issued for consultation shortly. We are expecting the final standards to be published in Spring 2000.

  These standards will provide the base for the development of a core curriculum for adult basic skills and national tests at Levels 1 and 2. All recognised qualifications will need to be aligned with the new national standards. We have also asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for advice on the link between national tests and qualifications.

  Education Provision
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements he will make for the coherence of the curriculum and the delivery of education between the post-and pre-16 sectors. [94758]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: We have already introduced a number of initiatives which will lead to greater coherence between pre-16 and post-16 education and encourage progression throughout the 14-19 phase, as part of our overall drive to raise standards at all levels of education. We are increasing the range of qualifications on offer, and are increasing curriculum flexibility at Key Stage 4 (14-16) with enhanced opportunities for vocational study.

  As a follow up to the National Curriculum Review and in the context of responses to the White Paper "Learning to Succeed", we are looking at ways of increasing coherence in both the curriculum and the delivery of learning. We are working to create a culture where all young people continue in learning until 18 or 19.

  Key Skills
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on integration of key skills into the level 3 curriculum. [94737]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The Government want to encourage more young people to develop their key skills as a natural part of their post-16 education and training. We are therefore introducing from September 2000 a new qualification covering communication, application of number and information
  638
  technology. The intention is that individuals should study at the level appropriate to their own needs and to their main course of study. This will include level 3.

  Key Stage 4 Pupils
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Key Stage 4 pupils there are in schools for which the National Curriculum is currently disapplied. [94733]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are keen to encourage work-related learning at Key Stage 4. Under s363 of the Education Act 1996, two subjects can be disapplied to allow pupils to spend time in further education and work experience. 8,985 pupils followed this route last year. This year's figures are not yet available. This figure does not include pupils with special educational needs or those in the six schools which have applied under s362 of the 1996 Education Act to disapply all or part of the National Curriculum more generally.

  Young People
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people aged 16 to 18 were not in either education, training or work in each of the last five years. [94764]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The latest available information is in the table.

  Year

  Number

  Percentage of population

  1998 (provisional)

  173,000

  9

  1997

  167,000

  9

  1996

  160,000

  9

  1995

  152,000

  9

  1994

  148,000

  9

  Source:

  School, college, and trainee records, Labour Force Survey

  We are taking a strategic approach to reducing the number of 16-18 year olds not in education, training, or work, and to improving participation and attainment across the board.

  An enhanced strategy—called ConneXions—will ensure that far more young people continue in education and training until they are at least 19. Some initiatives under ConneXions, for example, Right to Time Off for Study or Training, will have begun to take effect from September this year. Further details of the ConneXions strategy will be announced shortly.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is chairing a Ministerial Steering Group to oversee the implementation of action recommended in "Bridging the Gap—New opportunities for 16-18-year-olds not in education employment or training", the Social Exclusion Unit's most recent report.

  Local Learning Partnerships
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for involving students as members of local learning partnerships. [94682]
  639
  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]The White Paper "Learning to Succeed" both endorses the current remit of Learning Partnerships and proposes strengthening their role in reflecting the needs of the community. They are being actively encouraged to involve partners who represent the wider interests of the community, including students and other learners.

  Training
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if multinational and multi-site companies will be able to bypass the local learning and skills councils and deal directly at national level in connection with training and qualifications issues. [94741]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]It will be important for the Learning and Skills Council at national and local levels to engage employers of all sizes in workforce development which will benefit individuals, improve business competitiveness and strengthen the economy. There are large national companies which find it difficult to work effectively within the current system; and the Learning and Skills Council will be able to develop arrangements which make it easier to provide a national link to such companies. The precise arrangements will be developed in coming months.

  New Deal
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what money has been received by Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council from the New Deal programme and how this money has been spent. [94594]

  Ms Jowell
  This information is a commercially confidential matter between the Employment Service and Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council and cannot therefore be released.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Carbon Dioxide (Emissions Reduction)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the carbon dioxide emissions reduction needed for a 20 per cent. reduction from the UK's 1990 levels by 2010 he expects to be delivered in Northern Ireland. [93867]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Following Kyoto in 1997, the UK has a legally binding target to cut emissions of a basket of six greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels over the period 2008–2012. The UK Government also have a domestic goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

  The Government are currently developing a draft climate change programme which will set out how the UK will deliver its Kyoto target and move towards its domestic goal. We are aiming to publish the draft programme for further consultation towards the end of 1999.

  Prison Wings
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the paramilitary affiliation of the prison wings in which the six persons charged in May 1997 with the murder of Robert Hamill were imprisoned. [94361]

  Mr. Ingram
  Five of the six persons charged were held within the UVF wings and one was held within the LVF wing in HMP Maze.

  Enforcement Officer Statistics
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many enforcement officers currently operate within the Department of the Environment; and what were the comparable figures for 1992 to 1998. [94450]

  Mr. George Howarth
  At 1 October 1999 there were 13 enforcement officers attached to the Department's Transport Licensing and Enforcement Branch. The comparable figures for 1992 to 1998 are:

  Number

  1992

  14

  1993

  17

  1994

  15

  1995

  15

  1996

  15

  1997

  14

  1998

  13

  Irish-medium Schools
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Irish Government about joint funding of Irish-medium post primary schools in the border region; and if he will make a statement. [94766]

  Mr. McFall
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: 1 have regular discussions with the Irish Minister for Education and Science on topics of mutual interest, including Irish-medium education. Those discussions have not yet involved joint funding of schools, though there is joint funding through the European Peace and Reconciliation Package of teaching materials for Irish-medium primary schools.

  Debris
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date bomb debris from the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan explosions arrived in Northern Ireland; what was the recorded weight of debris received; if a continuous chain of custody for the debris can be established whilst it remained in Northern Ireland; what happened to the debris after the Belfast forensic scientist Dr. Hall carried out his examination; and where and in whose custody the debris is today. [93526]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Forensic Science Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. R. W. Adams. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  641
  Letter from R. W. Adams to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 19 October 1999:
  I am writing in response to your question regarding debris received at this laboratory in connection with bombings in Monaghan and Dublin in 1974.Items relating to the above incidents were received from the Garda Siochana at the laboratory in Belfast on 28 May 1974. No weight was recorded for them.There are no records available in the laboratory in relation to the internal continuity of the items or to their ultimate fate. The presumption is that they were returned to the Garda in line with normal practice for items received from the police.

  Fostering
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of children from Catholic homes who have been placed with Protestant foster-parents and the number of children from Protestant homes who have been placed with Catholic foster-parents for each of the areas within the South and East Belfast Trust. [94524]

  Mr. George Howarth
  At present, two Catholic children are placed with Protestant foster carers and one Protestant child with Catholic carers in long-term fostering placements. In addition, nine Catholic children are placed with Protestant carers and four Protestant children with Catholic carers in short-term, temporary arrangements. Each of these placements has been made with the consent of the child's parents.

  Car Parking
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many car parks are provided by (1) the Department of the Environment, (2) the private sector and (3) district councils in the urban areas of(a) Dungannon, (b) Portadown, (c) Armagh City and (d) Newry; what is the total number of (i) paid for spaces and (ii) free spaces in each of these urban areas; and what proposals there are to provide additional parking spaces in each of these urban areas. [94625]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. Colin James. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from C. James to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 21 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to respond to your recently tabled parliamentary Question about car park provision in the urban areas of Dungannon, Portadown, Armagh and Newry. The information requested is as follows:

  Urban Area

  Dungannon1

  Portadown

  Armagh

  Newry

  DOE(NI) Roads Service

  Car Parks

  5

  12

  8

  14

  Paid Spaces

  362

  639

  587

  526

  Free Spaces

  218

  754

  308

  814

  Private Sector

  Car Parks

  —

  4

  2

  2

  Paid Spaces

  —

  540

  138

  —

  Free Spaces

  —

  775

  20

  1,950

  642

  Urban Area

  Dungannon1

  Portadown

  Armagh

  Newry

  District Council

  Car Parks

  —

  1

  3

  —

  Paid Spaces

  —

  —

  130

  —

  Free Spaces

  —

  30

  60

  —

  1 Following a review of car parking at Perry Street 40 paid spaces will become free spaces later this year, i.e., there will be 322 paid spaces and 258 free spaces.

  Roads Service has no proposals at present to provide additional car parking spaces in any of the above-mentioned urban areas.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  General Social Care Council
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the proposed General Social Care Council will operate in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [94542]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The publication of a fundamental review of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) was announced in the House on 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 553. The Secretary of State for Health announced his intention then to establish mechanisms for regulating the personal social services workforce in England and to hand over CCETSW's functions for social services training to the new body.

  I have given careful thought to the best arrangements for regulating the social services workforce in Northern Ireland, consistent with the Government's plans as outlined in the Social Services White Papers for England, Scotland and Wales. I have taken into account that there are to be separate regulatory bodies for England, Scotland and Wales.

  I have concluded that there should be a separate body for the regulation of the social services workforce in Northern Ireland and that it should, as in England, Scotland and Wales, assume responsibility for CCETSW's training functions. However, the Northern Ireland body must have the closest possible alignment with similar machinery in the other countries of the UK, and officials will be working to ensure that effective links of this kind are put in place.

  We also need to have coherent overall arrangements for developing and enforcing high standards of conduct and practice, and for ensuring that workforce and training strategies are directed towards the same standards. I have, therefore, also asked officials to ensure that we bring together the work of the regulatory body and the work in Northern Ireland of any future National Training Organisation for the personal social services.

  Children and adults who use the social services in Northern Ireland should be able to rely on a workforce that is properly trained, appropriately qualified and effectively regulated. We will be bringing forward more detailed proposals for the new regulatory body in a social services paper to be published shortly. It is our intention to ensure that the new arrangements in Northern Ireland are available at the same time as in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Policing Review
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated total cost of implementing the Patten Recommendations on Policing in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [94351]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not possible to estimate the total cost of implementing the recommendations made by the Patten Commission. The Government are currently engaged in a consultation exercise and in assessing the impact of the proposals, including financial implications. The consultation process will continue until the end of November, following which the Secretary of State will make a statement to the House.

  Director of Disability
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the new Equality Commission in Northern Ireland will appoint(a) a Director of Disability and (b) support staff in the Directorate for Disability; and if he will make a statement. [94561]

  Mr. McFall
  The Equality Commission is currently making preparations to appoint a Director of Disability and an additional operational post. In August 1999 it temporarily allocated an existing Director to take responsibility for disability issues including making preparations for the new advisory and enforcement powers, accommodation and staffing and organisational structure.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have died due to prostate cancer in each of the past 10 years; what has been taken to address the problem; and if he will make a statement. [94546]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information on deaths is as follows:

  Deaths

  1989

  159

  1990

  195

  1991

  175

  1992

  201

  1993

  182

  1994

  209

  1995

  216

  1996

  211

  1997

  208

  1998

  1220

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  Figures supplied by General Register Office (NI)

  Cancer services in Northern Ireland are presently being reorganised to ensure that all cancer patients are managed by specialist cancer teams. Such care is associated with a better quality of life and improved prospects of survival. All patients with prostate cancer, who require surgery will be treated by specialist teams. Current research evidence does not support population screening for prostate cancer.

  Sovereign's Portrait
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the portrait of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is on display within RUC stations; if the Patten Commission report changes the policy of display of the sovereign's portrait; and if he will make a statement. [94349]

  Mr. Ingram
  The portrait of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II can be on display in RUC stations, though the RUC have advised that there is no formal policy about displaying the portrait. The Patten Commission did not make any specific reference to this issue in its report, however, it did recommend that the police service should maintain a 'neutral working environment'. This proposal, as with all the other recommendations, is part of the current consultation process.

  Disability
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the timetable for the introduction of legislation to provide statutory enforcement powers in Northern Ireland similar to those available in Great Britain under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [94560]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is intended that the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland will enforce disability rights from April 2000. The legislation to confer the necessary enforcement powers on the Equality Commission will be introduced shortly by means of an Order in Council. If devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly occurs before the Order has completed all its parliamentary stages the legislation will transfer to the Assembly.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the new rights under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will become available in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [94559]

  Mr. George Howarth
  New rights under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 were introduced across the UK from 1 October 1999.

  School Premises, Portavogie
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) when the premises, formerly occupied by the East Down Institute for Further Education, adjacent to Portavogie Primary School, New Harbour road, Portavogie, became vacant; what proposals there are for the future user or ownership of these premises; and if he will make a statement; [94431]

  (2) how long the school premises at New Harbour road, Portavogie adjacent to the primary school have been vacant; what proposals there are for the future use or disposal of these premises; and if he will make a statement. [94540]

  Mr. McFall
  The adult education centre in Portavogie was officially closed down by the East Down Institute for Further and Higher Education in June 1998. The South Eastern Education and Library Board carried out a feasibility study into possible renovation of the building but it proved too costly. I understand that the premises will now be offered for public sale.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to make additional resources available to the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Trust over the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [94342]

  Mr. George Howarth
  An additional £15 million has been invested in the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service over the three year period 1999–2002. The first instalment of that investment was announced on 28 June 1999 when £3 million was provided for immediate investment in the provision of accident and emergency ambulances, replacement of equipment, and training and development of ambulance crews. The balance of the £15 million will be deployed in accordance with the outcome of the Comprehensive Review of the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service which is due to report by the end of November.

  Housing, Carryduff
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to publish the Strategic Framework for Northern Ireland; if decisions for planning applications for housing schemes at Carryduff will be delayed until after the publication of the Strategic Framework; and if he will make a statement about the future of housing development in Carryduff and District. [94556]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Regional Strategic Framework for Northern Ireland is not expected to be published until Spring 2000. A draft of the Regional Strategy is presently the subject of a Public Examination and the independent panel conducting the examination will not submit its report to the Department of the Environment until the end of 1999. Thereafter, it is expected that the matter will be considered by the new Northern Ireland Assembly before the Regional Strategy is finalised.

  As regards decisions on existing planning applications for housing schemes at Carryduff, the position is that these applications are incomplete and cannot be processed until Environmental Statements have been submitted in support of the proposals. Only when the Environmental Statements have been submitted will the Department be in a position to decide how the applications can be progressed.

  The matter of future housing in Carryduff and District will be for the forthcoming Belfast Metropolitan Area (BMA) Plan; the BMA Plan will have due regard for strategic principles resolved by, and contained in, the final versions of the Regional Strategy.

  British Fluoridation Society
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money the British Fluoridation Society received in grant aid from the Northern Ireland office in each of the last five years. [94717]
  646
  Mr. George Howarth
  The Department of Health and Social Services provides funding to the British Fluoridation Society on an annual basis. In the last five years the following funding has been provided.

  £

  1999–2000

  2,159

  1998–99

  2,104

  1997–98

  2,047

  1996–97

  2,037

  1995–96

  1,982

WALES

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the reports published by his Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by his Department, (c) the decisions his Department has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria he uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93979]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None. I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given by the President of the Council on 19 October 1999,Official Report, column 429-30.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many cases have been successfully prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service in the last 12 months. [93421]

  The Solicitor-General
  In the year ending June 1999, the Crown Prosecution Service secured 975,003 convictions in magistrates courts and 69,299 convictions in the Crown Court. This amounts to 98.3 per cent. of cases proceeding to a hearing in the magistrates court and 88.7 per cent. of cases proceeding to a hearing in the Crown Court.

  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement about the work of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate. [93424]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Chief Inspector is at present implementing the changes necessary to adapt the Inspectorate to the revised (42 Area) structure of the CPS and to give effect to the recommendation of the Glidewell Report that its remit should be widened. These changes will include, at the specific request of my right hon. noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General, the introduction of a substantial lay element in the inspection process. In addition, the Government are already committed to legislation to place the CPS Inspectorate, which is at present internal, on an independent statutory basis.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the implementation of the restructuring of the Crown Prosecution Service areas. [93419]
  647
  The Solicitor-General
  The restructuring of the CPS into 42 areas was implemented on 1 April 1999. Chief Crown Prosecutors are now preparing outline plans for the implementation of further structural changes as recommended in the Glidewell report. These will involve the creation of new Criminal Justice Units and Trial Units.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the recent visits by the Law Officers to branches of the Crown Prosecution Service. [93420]

  The Solicitor-General
  Since taking office last summer I have visited 16 CPS areas throughout England and Wales, as well as CPS Headquarters and CPS Inspectorate. The Attorney-General has visited four areas since taking up the post and has another three visits planned. I have another seven visits planned this year and by next summer I anticipate I will have visited all CPS areas. The visits have given me a valuable insight into the workings of the CPS and how the Glidewell and Narey initiatives are being taken forward.

  I have met many Higher Court Advocates and I have been very impressed. The Higher Court Advocates seem to have been accepted well by the judiciary and the local Bar. They have had many years' experience of prosecuting in the magistrates' court and so are well equipped to meet the demands of higher court advocacy. Changes in the Access to Justice Bill allow CPS staff who are barristers to join their colleagues in the Crown Court.

  Young Offenders (Trials)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the length of time young offenders have to wait between being charged and trial. [93422]

  The Solicitor-General
  For young offenders' cases where not guilty pleas are entered, the average time from charge to start of the trial was 123 days in February 1999. For all cases in the youth court, the average period from charge to verdict was 67 days in February 1999, compared with 71 days in June 1998 and 81 days in June 1997. Information on the Crown court is not available as case progress information there does not distinguish adult from youth cases.

  The Government are committed to reducing unnecessary delay in the youth justice system still further. Chief Crown Prosecutors throughout England and Wales are working closely with other agencies locally to ensure this is achieved.

  Owen Oyston
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Solicitor-General what recent representations he has received concerning the conduct of the Crown Prosecution Service in the case of Owen Oyston. [93423]

  The Solicitor-General
  In August this year, the Attorney-General received a copy of a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) to the Secretary of State for the Home Department concerning the case of Owen Oyston.

  Charities
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement with regard to his role in relation to charities. [93418]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General's role in relation to charities is wide-ranging and of historic origins. The Attorney-General's function is to represent the Crown as parens patriae and so to act as protector, both of charity in general and of particular charities.

  It falls to the Attorney-General to institute legal proceedings to protect a charity and to represent the charitable interest. The Attorney-General is a necessary party to any litigation in which the objects of a charity need to be separately represented, for example, where the interest of the Trustees do not coincide with the objects of the charity.

  In addition, the Attorney-General has the power to authorise ex gratia payments from charitable funds on moral grounds where such payments might otherwise amount to breaches of trust. He also has the power, by derogation from the Sovereign, to give directions under the Sign Manual as to the re-distribution of uncertain charitable gifts under wills.

CABINET OFFICE

  Enforcement Concordat
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the workings of the Enforcement Concordat. [94550]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Enforcement Concordat sets out a blueprint for fair, practical and consistent enforcement. It has been developed in consultation with all the key stakeholders in the enforcement process. The Concordat policies and procedures therefore represent a consensus about best practice in regulatory enforcement. The Concordat provides a balanced approach to enforcement based on the philosophy that enforcers should work with businesses who wish to comply while at the same time taking firm action against those who deliberately flout the law or act irresponsibly. The organisations that have adopted it have provided a clear statement to business and others being regulated about what they can expect from enforcement officers. I commend the Enforcement Concordat to all local and central government enforcement officers.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what procedures are in place to measure the impact of the Enforcement Concordat. [94555]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The adoption, implementation and effectiveness of the Enforcement Concordat are all monitored.

  The Cabinet Office keeps a record of all the authorities, agencies and other bodies that have adopted the Concordat. Individual implementation plans are sent to the Cabinet Office or the relevant local authority associations. Those plans should include arrangements for

  649
  performance appraisal. The Concordat is still relatively new but, once arrangements have been operational for a year, individual annual reports will be submitted following which the Cabinet Office will review the Concordat's effectiveness. There should be sufficient data to begin the first review next spring.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what are the aims and objectives of the Enforcement Concordat. [94551]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The aims and objectives of the Enforcement Concordat are to achieve widespread adoption by both national and local enforcement bodies of simple, business-friendly enforcement procedures.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the progress and achievements of the Regulatory Impact Unit. [94600]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Regulatory Impact Unit (RIU) was launched in March this year. Since then it has introduced the scrutiny of regulatory proposals to ensure that their impact has been properly assessed. It has published the Guide to Better European Regulation and continues to promote the use of the Better Regulation Guide. It has agreed with Departments that they will include regulatory performance reports in their Annual Reports. It has launched, on the Cabinet Office website and on the intranet of other government departments, an IT based checklist for policymakers.

  The RIU has supported the Better Regulation Task Force in the production of its reports, reviews and other activities.

  The RIU has also consulted about reform of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The Government intend to bring forward reforms when parliamentary time allows.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the responsibilities, aims and objectives of the Regulatory Impact Unit. [94601]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The RIU is part of the Cabinet Office and therefore shares its aims and objectives. In particular it plays a part in the Cabinet Office Public Service Agreement (PSA) to develop public services, programmes and regulation across the public sector which meet the needs of users and which are of a high quality, modern and well co-ordinated. Under the (PSA) it has been committed to introducing arrangements for the audit and evaluation of better government practice including the preparation of Regulatory Impact Assessments.

  The RIU:
  helps Ministers and Departments find the right legislative balance to achieve proper standards of protection without unnecessary impact on business;
  scrutinises regulatory proposals to ensure that they have been properly assessed in line with the best practice that it develops and circulates such as the Better Regulation Guide and the Guide to Better European Regulation;
  650
  works with other Member States and the European Commission to improve the quality of legislative proposals at the European level;
  promotes the Enforcement Concordat;
  operates the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and develops proposals for its reform; and
  supports the Better Regulation Task Force in the production of its reports, reviews and other activities.

  Regulations
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which regulations have been identified as(a) no longer necessary and (b) capable of simplification. [94502]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government have recently announced plans to remove and simplify regulations in a number of areas including; licensing law, the complex rules on tax relief on stakeholder and personal pension contributions, the law on weights and measures and the current system of consumer credit. We are also looking at simplifying regulation of the private recruitment industry, speeding up the way houses are bought and sold, and have announced a major review of farming regulations.

  In addition, we are introducing legislation to make it easier for Departments to remove or refocus out-dated regulations by increasing the flexibility of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) of 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 664, if the total annual salary cost of £3.6 million of employing special advisers includes the pension contributions listed in the answer of 13 July 1999, Official Report, column 173. [94567]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Yes. The figure of £3.6 million included pension contributions of £413,000.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Feed
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department plans to take to ensure that animal feed which includes genetically modified ingredients is so labelled. [93398]

  Ms Quin
  The Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs held its first meeting on 24 September. It will have an important role in considering both the safety and labelling of genetically modified material in animal feed.

  Pesticides
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to reduce the use of pesticides. [93404]

  Ms Quin
  We actively encourage farmers and growers to minimise their use of pesticides, consistent with effective pest control. We fund extensive R&D programmes; we publish guidance; and we support the work of the Pesticides Forum.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the rules for the labelling of imported genetically modified foods. [93405]

  Ms Quin
  EC regulations require all foods containing genetically modified material to be clearly labelled. These rules apply equally to imported food and foods produced in the UK.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will intervene to ensure that products can only be described as 100 per cent. Geneticmodification-free if they have no GM content. [93407]

  Ms Quin
  EC proposals on the rules to be applied to food described as "genetically modified (GM) free" are expected to be published in the next month or so. Until these rules are agreed any products described in this way will continue to be regulated by the Food Safety Act 1990. This Act makes it an offence to describe, by way of labelling or advertising, a food falsely or in a way likely to mislead a purchaser as to its nature, substance or quality. In addition, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 makes it an offence for a trader to supply food to which a false trade description has been applied or to which a trade description has been applied which is misleading to a material degree. The interpretation and enforcement of these requirements is initially a matter for local authorities, and ultimately for the courts, to decide.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Fisheries Minister of Iceland to discuss fisheries policy. [93408]

  Mr. Morley
  I met the Icelandic Fisheries Minister on 30 May 1998.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received. from the protected horticulture sector regarding proposals for a climate change levy. [93409]

  Mr. Morley
  I have received several representations about the impact of the climate change levy direct from members of the protected horticulture sector and from hon. Members representing constituents in the industry. Concerns have been expressed about the high net cost of the proposed levy to protected horticulture businesses and the impact this will have on profitability and competitiveness.

  Battery Hens
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the welfare of battery hens. [93410]
  652
  Mr. Morley
  A new EU Directive on the welfare of laying hens was agreed on 15 June. This requires all member states to ban the conventional battery cage from 1 January 2012 and to apply improved standards to its use in the meantime.

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the industry on the future structure of dairy farming and milk processing. [93411]

  Ms Quin
  Following the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the supply of raw milk in Great Britain on 6 July by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Minister has had a number of meetings with representatives of all sides of the dairy industry to engage in a constructive debate on the way forward.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of business prospects for small dairy farmers. [93412]

  Ms Quin
  All dairy farmers face challenging times as a result of reduced milk prices, increasing liberalisation of world markets, and progress on CAP reform. But, the dairy farming sector's ability to respond positively to these challenges will be helped by the high level of producer expertise and commitment, favourable farm structure and ideal climate for milk production.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the prospects for dairy farmers. [93401]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Dairy farmers face challenging times as a result of reduced milk prices, increasing liberalisation of world markets, and progress on CAP reform. But the dairy farming sector's ability to respond positively to these challenges will be helped by the high level of producer expertise and commitment, favourable farm structure and ideal climate for milk production.

  Farming (Less-favoured Areas)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on plans for reform of support for farming in less-favoured areas. [93413]

  Mr. Morley
  We issued an initial consultation paper on this subject in April to which we received 81 responses from a wide range of interests. These views are being taken into account as we draw up detailed reform proposals on which we shall consult in due course.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives his Department is taking to improve standards of animal welfare; and if he will make a statement. [93414]

  Mr. Morley
  We have taken a number of initiatives to improve standards of animal welfare. These are detailed in our most recent "State of Play" document, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Bovine TB
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the trials investigating the control and spread of bovine TB. [93402]

  Ms Quin
  Five triplets have been enrolled in the trial and work has been carried out in all these areas. Progress has been slower than we would have liked, mainly owing to interference by protesters which we regret as it will take longer to find a scientific solution.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Government support for organic farming. [93400]

  Mr. Morley
  We have allocated more than £16 million of aid under the Organic Farming Scheme (OFS), we are funding the Organic Conversion Information Service and we are spending more than £2 million this year on organic R&D.

  We are currently reviewing the operations of the OFS in the light of trends in the organic sector.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by Lord Bishop of Lichfield): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Viscount Hood Viscount Hood—Took the Oath.

North American Free Trade Agreement
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is any prospect of the United Kingdom being admitted to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the prospects of the United Kingdom being admitted to the North American Free Trade Agreement are nonexistent. The United Kingdom is a committed member of the European Union. American foreign policy has, in recent years, consistently encouraged the UK to play a full role in a strong Europe, and the UK Government have no intention now, or in the future, of applying to be admitted to NAFTA.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I ask the Minister to take the point a little further. If the North American Free Trade Agreement were genuinely to stretch its reach to outside the American continent, could it in fact play any part in promoting international free trade in any sense other than that already performed by the World Trade Organisation? Is it correct to say that membership of NAFTA by this country would be totally contrary to our membership of the EU because it would permit duty-free entry of goods from the United States, Canada and Mexico into this country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is quite clear that, under Article 10, membership of NAFTA would not be compatible with our membership of the EU. More important, it appears to make no economic sense whatever, in that 52 per cent of our trade in goods and services is with the EU, and—I believe—18 per cent is with NAFTA. In fact, our trade with Sweden exceeds the total of our trade with Canada and Mexico put together. Eight of our top 10 trade partners are in Europe. On that basis, it would not seem to me to make commercial sense.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the increasing enthusiasm in certain parts of the Conservative Party for a link-up with NAFTA is yet another indication that their strident campaign against the euro is taking them ever closer to rejecting the European Union altogether? Would it not be wise for the Government, in turn, to be somewhat more relaxed
1286
in their attitude towards the euro; to recognise that it is part of the central project of the European Union; and should they not be a little more bold in expressing, at least in principle, the view that the euro would be good for Britain?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the question of what the policy of the Conservative Party now is on that issue is obviously very real. It seems to be moving towards rejecting the European Union in its totality. I merely point out what has been said by Malcolm Rifkind, John Major, and the right honourable Member for Henley, Mr Heseltine. Perhaps I may read out their comments. John Major said recently:
"They were trying to create a certain sense in which there will then one day be no choice but to decide whether we stay in or leave. This is politically crazy. I also think it is economically crazy".
I shall quote what Malcolm Rifkind said. I suppose that this is also to be air blown out of the records. He said that Conservative policy is
"a call which is little more than an euphemism for us to quit Europe".
Now perhaps I may quote the right honourable Member for Henley—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord and remind him that, as a Minister, he is responsible for answering questions addressed to the Government about government policy, and not for speculating about the policy of other parties?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in that totally disappointing and inaccurate answer, the Minister did not even respond to the fairly erroneous comments of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. Surely the Government must agree that global free trade by the year 2020 should be a vision that we, in all parts of this House, set for the world? If he agrees, surely he should further agree that free trade between Europe and America is an important first step towards realising that vision? Therefore, why does he reject an alliance between the European Union and NAFTA, one of our most significant trading partners, as an important symbol of that free trade commitment?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree that global free trade is our aim. That is why the UK is working with the EU towards implementation of the transatlantic economic partnership with the US, the EU-Canada Trade Initiative and the EU-Mexico Free Trade Agreement. We are working towards exactly those goals stated by the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not abundantly plain that being admitted to NAFTA is quite different from working co-operatively with the member states of NAFTA, which, as I understand it—and perhaps the Minister will confirm—we have done successfully

1287
since the Labour Government were elected in 1997? Indeed, we continue to work successfully with them. Is it not also a fact that many of our main industrial companies work most co-operatively in mergers, combinations, or alliances with companies operating within the European Union area? Why should we begin to damage that prospect by reason of the internal arguments which seem to be absorbing the Tory Party at the present time?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I entirely take the point that there is a great difference between extending free trade with free trade agreements to the countries of NAFTA, and the point of the original Question, which was about joining NAFTA. Clearly we could do that only if we ceased to be a member of the European Union.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, is it not right that ever since the start of the Common Market, the United States, in spite of tariff barriers, and because of its lean economy, has managed to increase its exports to Europe, and that in fact since 1990, the US has increased its exports to Europe much faster than we in Britain have increased our own exports? Does that not tend to show that it is not necessary for success in world markets to be a member of an organisation like the European Union, least of all an organisation which seems to believe in high taxes, high regulation, and bureaucracy? What is really important is to have an efficient economy ourselves as free from regulation as possible.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly in all matters of trade the efficiency of one's economy and how well one increases productivity are major factors in whether or not one increases trade. I do not believe that that in any way alters the need for free trade areas or the benefits of the EU.

Third Party Liability Insurance: Businesses
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarretasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it should be a requirement for companies, small businesses and self-employed persons to have compulsory third party insurance against personal injury caused by negligence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, many third party liabilities of this kind are already covered through compulsory employers' liability insurance, compulsory motor insurance, licensing requirements, or, indeed, as a condition of membership of a trade association. Therefore, very persuasive arguments would be needed to justify the introduction of a general requirement for businesses to have third party liability insurance. Such a requirement is unlikely to be
1288
warranted by problems which may exist in particular sectors. The burden of complying with such a regulation would be particularly difficult for small businesses.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, which surprises me a little. Is the noble Lord aware that there are many people —particularly those who are self-employed, such as electricians—who unfortunately can and do fail to carry out work properly? That can lead to serious consequences for the person for whom they are working. If those people are not insured against negligence, there is no possible way in which damages can be claimed. I happen to know that that has happened. Will the noble Lord offer me advice?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord's question covers a number of different situations. It is true, for example, that it would be difficult to claim insurance on a property if there were no form of insurance covering that property and if a sub-contractor or a self-employed person working on the property did not have insurance. Nevertheless, if one is concerned about such a situation it should be remembered that in many cases a requirement of membership of or registration with a trade association is that the member firm must protect itself one way or the other against such liabilities. On the other side of the equation, in many sectors the cost of general third party liability insurance would be a great deterrent to the setting up of small firms.
Lord Renton: My Lords, even if third party compulsory insurance is not feasible, surely the Government should do what they can in the interests of employees to have as much third party insurance as possible on a voluntary basis?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree. Indeed, in those sectors where it is a particular problem—for example, the construction sector—we are very much behind moves to establish that on a voluntary basis among small contractor firms.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, is it not the case that a large number of small businesses carry what are called "traders' policies"? Those not only cover stock and disruption to trading in case of fire, but also third party liability, including negligence, and also the no less important risk of product liability?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, that is true in many circumstances. As I said earlier, in some circumstances that is a condition of membership of the appropriate trade association. Therefore, in many cases there will be cover.

Beef on the Bone
3.15 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderleyasked. Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is the advice of the Chief Medical Officer that beef on the bone is safe to eat and, if so, whether they will allow it to be offered for sale in England.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, Professor Donaldson's advice, which the Government have already published, is that the ban can now be lifted, although it would be prudent to retain it for manufacturing uses as a precaution. We consider that it would be preferable for consumers and for the beef industry to lift the ban at the same time in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that sad and most disturbing reply which further depresses the very demoralised industry of agriculture. Will she say why we have to wait until the rest of the United Kingdom falls into line? Does not the Welsh Assembly seem to be undisciplined on this matter rather as, perhaps, your Lordships were on the first Question this afternoon?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I hope that it will not be depressing for the industry. We believe that it is in the industry's best interests that we take a United Kingdom view. Further scientific evidence is scheduled for November. Provided that that evidence and the medical advice are favourable, it will be the Government's clear and firm intention, and the clear and firm intention of the First Minister in Scotland and the First Secretary in Wales, to lift the ban throughout the United Kingdom.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does not the fact that we still have the ban on beef on the bone look suspiciously as though we are worried about the state of beef, thereby giving ammunition to the French in banning our beef?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not agree. I believe it is absolutely clear that it is because we have had the highest standards, based on an extremely precautionary approach, that we have been able to persuade the European Commission that our beef is safe for export. The beef which would be exported under the date-based export scheme has no link to the beef on the bone issue. That beef has to be deboned; it has to come from animals under 30 months of age which were born after 1996; and it has to come from dedicated plants. That presents a separate issue, and one which we need to pursue, but I do not believe it is related to this particular one.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in asking a supplementary question I must declare an interest, having been a member of the Southwood working
1290
party which reported to the Government on BSE in 1989. Will the Minister agree that for a time it was a wise precaution to ban beef on the bone because of the possibility that the bone might have been contaminated by spinal cord tissue and posterior root ganglia? However, in the light of all the precautions that have been taken over the past 18 months or so, is it not now evident that the risk of eating beef on the bone is so minuscule that the ban should be lifted? Will the noble Baroness press her colleagues in Scotland and in Wales to lift it as soon as possible in the light of the CMO's advice?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, are very wise. The spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee suggested that it was a sound precaution to take. The Government imposed the beef bone regulations because of that advice. We have received advice from Professor Donaldson that the risk in lifting the ban on the retail sale of beef on the bone would now be so low as not to be significant in any quantifiable way. We hope to be able to proceed on that advice. The chief medical officers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland want a little longer to consider the data which will be available from the Oxford epidemiological group in November. We believe that it is sensible and prudent to give them those few weeks to see if we can go forward on a United Kingdom basis.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, is it not a slightly farcical situation when the Chief Medical Officer for England, who has overall responsibility for health in the United Kingdom, says that beef on the bone is fit and all right for us to eat, but two of the assemblies among Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—which were elected on the basis that they would allow beef on the bone to be eaten as soon as they were elected to power—now prevent those in England who want to eat beef on the bone from doing so? How are we to resolve those sorts of questions in the future?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not answer from this Dispatch Box for the policies of either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. The Chief Medical Officer advises the United Kingdom Government as a whole but legislative competence and policy in food safety is the remit of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, advised by their own CMOs. Obviously, it is preferable if we can go forward on a United Kingdom basis. I return to that point. We are all working together and hoping to achieve that.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am absolutely certain that the Minister understands the difficulties that arise from different chief medical officers having different opinions. Does the Minister agree that if we embark upon a policy that responds in a piecemeal manner and which is somewhat divisive, that would make a difficult situation much worse and would not achieve anything? Secondly, how long does the Minister believe it will take before the chief medical officers present a united front? How quickly can we

1291
respond and lift the ban when the other chief medical officers come into line with the English Chief Medical Officer?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, consumers would experience real difficulties were there to be different regimes in different parts of the United Kingdom. For that reason we believe it is preferable to go forward in a united manner. We hope that when the new data are published in November the chief medical officers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be reassured and will take the same view as Professor Donaldson. Then we shall be able to move speedily to lift the ban on retail sales.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I want to press the Minister. Is the Chief Medical Officer responsible for the whole of the United Kingdom, or does he have to go along with his subordinates in Scotland and Wales? Secondly, does the Minister realise the difficulties caused by the delay? We have no idea when the ban will be lifted, although the suggestion is that it should happen in November. Does she not accept that in the meantime many farmers are going to the wall? In this country farming is in crisis and this Government are doing nothing urgently to help.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I take issue with the noble Baroness about this Government doing nothing to help farmers. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture announced a substantial package of aid to farming industries whose difficulties I would not underestimate.
A Noble Lord: My Lords, it was only £1 million.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it was not only £1 million, but £150 million as well as the compensatory money.
The noble Baroness asked about the position of the Chief Medical Officer. He is the adviser to the United Kingdom Government. It is absolutely plain that in the past food safety policy has been the remit of Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers and it has been possible for them to take different advice from different CMOs. In November we expect additional evidence on which we hope that the CMOs of the other countries will be able to advise their chief Ministers to lift the ban. Then we can move speedily to lift the ban.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is not the purpose of devolution that each country should have responsibility for looking after its own affairs? That being so, why should England, and English farmers, have to depend upon the decisions of Scottish and Welsh Ministers?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, they do not have to depend on the decisions of Scottish and Welsh Ministers. However, in this case it is sensible to act on a United Kingdom basis. I give an analogy. It would
1292
dhave been possible to set up separate food standards agencies in each of the four countries. Because of issues of food safety and food standards, the decision has been taken that it is sensible not to have different regimes in different countries and for us to act in a concerted, United Kingdom fashion. That is what we want to do in this respect. The law says that it is possible to act in a different way. The views of the First Minister of Scotland, the First Secretary in Wales and the United Kingdom Government are that it would be preferable—I say that seriously—for the industry to move on a United Kingdom basis.

China: Falun Gong
3.23 p.m.
Lord Moyneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make representations to the Government of China about the treatment of adherents of Falun Gong.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government expressed their disappointment to the Chinese Government at the banning of the Falun Gong organisation on 22nd July and supported an EU Presidency démarche in Peking on 29th July to the Chinese Government. We also referred to the issue at the recent round of High Level Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue between 13th and 15th September.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that satisfactory reply. I am glad that the Government of this country are aware of this shocking situation. Tens of thousands of people are under arrest, including old ladies up to 83 years of age. Many are tortured with electric shocks. One woman died on the 7th of this month after 10 days of continuous beatings. People have been sacked from their jobs, expelled from universities and driven into exile. The matter should not be allowed to pass without comment and I am glad that the Government are not doing so.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure your Lordships, and particularly the noble Lord, that the Government take very seriously indeed the human rights issues inherent in the expression of religious commitments. It is a matter that the Government have pursued with some vigour since coming into office in 1997. We have sought bilateral dialogue with China in order to address that matter vigorously.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the actions that the Government have taken already. Will she agree that Falun Gong is an entirely peaceful belief system which encourages the highest standards of moral behaviour among its adherents and therefore there is no excuse whatsoever for the actions that the Chinese have taken against the millions of people who belong to that new religion?

1293
Apart from remonstrating with them, as the noble Baroness has said we have already done, will she see that the matter is taken up and investigated by the UN Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, M Abdelfattah Amor, and ask him to make a report urgently to the Human Rights Commission so that the commission can consider the Chinese action at its session next April?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have made it clear in all their dialogues with the Chinese authorities that they see religious expression as a clear part of human rights. We make no comments on the merits or demerits of any particular religion. Religion is a matter for the individual. Her Majesty's Government have taken every opportunity to encourage the Chinese authorities to engage with the UN. The noble Lord will know that we have encouraged them to sign two conventions: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1997 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1998. Through bilateral dialogue we are also making efforts to make practical contributions to a change in the way in which China addresses the issue of human rights. We shall pursue that with vigour.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, how does the Government's repeated failure to co-sponsor the annual motion of the UN Human Rights Commission criticising China's human rights record demonstrate that Britain is prepared to take a firm and candid stance on such matters of human rights? Can the Minister say how the so-called ethical foreign policy of the Government has, over the past year, improved the human rights situation in China, given that only this week Amnesty International said that there has been a marked deterioration in respect of civil and political rights in China since the Prime Minister's visit a year ago?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can. Her Majesty's Government have a proud record in that regard. In 1997, when Her Majesty's Government came into office, we were instrumental in bringing about a change. Isolation bore no fruit prior to 1997. Since 1997, through the bilateral dialogue, we have engaged with the Chinese in a practical, constructive manner, which has borne fruit. Dialogue is the way forward. We have continued to challenge the Chinese Government at the highest level in relation to breaches of human rights that have been identified to us.
Today the Prime Minister spoke directly to the President of China about issues of human rights. Yesterday my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had a very robust discussion with the Foreign Minister detailing a number of specific issues upon which Her Majesty's Government were not content. We are not silent. We are doing an enormous amount to improve this dialogue. But constructive interaction is the way forward, not negative isolation which brings no fruit.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, will her Majesty's Government continue to make representations to the
1294
Government of China about the treatment of the adherents of the Dalai Lama in Tibet? I ask that as patron of the all-party Tibet Group. As the noble Baroness will know, the Dalai Lama is not seeking independence from China; he is seeking a form of autonomy. Since he believes in achieving his objectives by peaceful means, I hope he will have the support of our House.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said earlier, Her Majesty's Government emphasised the importance of religious freedom. The issue of Tibet and the Dalai Lama were raised yesterday by the Foreign Secretary with the Foreign Minister. It is an issue upon which we continue to place emphasis. The Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of a number of people. It is a matter that her Majesty's Government will not cease to highlight whenever it seems appropriate.

United Reformed Church Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Boston of Faversham.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Mitrokhin-related Matters
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on Mitrokhin and related matters. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the Mitrokhin archive and other related issues.
"On 13th September, when the House was in Recess, I issued a Written Statement concerning the activities of the KGB and its agents which had been brought to light by the Mitrokhin archive. A copy of this Statement has been placed in the Library.
"The archive material relates to activities spanning several decades from 1917 up to the mid 1980s. A book by Mr Mitrokhin and Professor Christopher Andrew drawing on the archive was published in September prompting extensive media coverage. This in turn raised questions about how the archive had been used.

1295
"In the light of these questions, I announced on 13th September, with the agreement of the Prime Minister, that the Intelligence and Security Committee had been asked to conduct an inquiry into the policies and procedures used by the intelligence and security agencies in the handling of the Mitrokhin material. I am very grateful to the right honourable Member for Bridgwater, the chairman of the committee, and his colleagues for taking on this work. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I will carefully consider the committee's report and ensure that as much as possible of it is made public. It may, however, be helpful to the House if I set out today some of the essential background.
"Vasili Mitrokhin worked for almost 30 years in the foreign intelligence archives of the KGB, where, at great risk to himself, he made notes of the contents of the highly secret files which passed through his hands. Over many years, he assembled a huge collection of material, some in manuscript, some typed.
"In 1992, after Mr Mitrokhin approached the UK for help, the Secret Intelligence Service made arrangements to bring Mr Mitrokhin and his family to this country, together with his archive.
"As there were no original KGB documents or copies of original documents, the material itself was of no direct evidential value. But it was of huge value for intelligence and investigative purposes.
"Thousands of leads from Mr Mitrokhin's material have been followed up world-wide. As a result, our intelligence and security agencies, in cooperation with allied governments, have been able to put a stop to many security threats. Many unsolved investigations have been closed; many earlier suspicions confirmed; some names and reputations have been cleared.
"Our intelligence and security agencies have assessed the value of Mr Mitrokhin's material world-wide as immense.
"Much of the media coverage in September concerned Mrs Melita Norwood. My Statement of 13th September summarised the history of the Security Service's knowledge of Mrs Norwood spanning over half a century, and the decisions that were taken in her case. The handling of her case will plainly form part of the inquiry that is now under way by the Intelligence and Security Committee. For the convenience of the House, however, I will briefly summarise what I spelt out in September.
"Mrs Norwood was first vetted for access to government secrets in 1945 when she worked for the British Non-Ferrous Metal Research Association. Although there were concerns about her in 1945, there were insufficient grounds at that time to warrant withholding her clearance for access to sensitive documents. Further investigation, however, led to her vetting clearance being revoked in 1951. She had not in practice had authorised access to government secrets after 1949.
1296
"An extensive investigation of Mrs Norwood in the 1960s led the Security Service to conclude that Mrs Norwood had been a spy in the 1940s. But the service also concluded that there was no usable evidence which could be used in court to support a prosecution
"When Mr Mitroklin's notes of the KGB archive material became available to British intelligence in 1992, those notes further confirmed the suspicions already held about Mrs Norwood's role as a spy. However, the Security Service again concluded that this material did not on its own constitute evidence which could be put to a UK court. Moreover, a judgment was made at that time that material needed to remain secret for a period. There were many leads to more recent espionage to be followed up, particularly in the countries of a number of our close allies, which could be jeopardised by premature disclosure. In summary, the key decisions in this case were made in 1945, in 1951, in 1966 and in 1992–93.
"Questions on prosecutions for espionage or for any other alleged crime are a matter for the prosecuting authorities and the law officers, not for the Home Secretary of the day.
"As I made clear in my 13th September Statement, the papers relating to Mrs Norwood were submitted to the Attorney-General in the spring of this year. But he concluded that 1992 had represented the last opportunity for the authorities to proceed by way of a criminal investigation/possible prosecution, and that there was therefore no decision for him to take. I can, however, tell the House that, in the light of Mrs Norwood's recent statements, the papers in this case are currently being studied again by the prosecuting authorities. I understand that four other cases covering the Mitrokhin archive and other related matters are also being considered.
"Let me now turn to the decision which was taken to make publicly available information from the Mitrokhin archive. Although the material has been in the custody of the Secret Intelligence Service since 1992, it was and remains the property of Mr Mitrokhin. It was always his intention that the material should be published but Mr Mitrokhin agreed to co-operate with the major operation by the security and intelligence agencies, which I have outlined, to use the information first for investigative purposes.
"I understand that by 1996 investigations in the UK and elsewhere had reached a stage where it was possible to agree to start the process to meet Mr Mitrokhin's wish to see the story revealed. Given the nature of his notes, it was concluded that this could best be done through an historical analysis.
"In March 1996 the right honourable Sir Malcolm Rifkind QC, the then Foreign Secretary, agreed in principle that Professor Christopher Andrew of Cambridge University should be invited to coauthor, with Mr Mitrokhin, an historical study of

1297
those aspects of the archive which cover KGB activities against the principal Western states. I understand that Sir Malcolm agreed with the recommendation that an inter-departmental committee of officials should consider whether any of the information in the material needed to be withheld from publication. I also understand that Sir Malcolm imposed a condition that any allegations of criminal behaviour against individual persons should not be made public unless those individuals agreed or they had been prosecuted and convicted.
"This Government were informed in late 1997 of the plan to publish the archive, and concurred. In 1998 the Secret Intelligence Service entered into confidentiality agreements with Professor Andrew and the publishers, Penguin. These were intended to ensure that still sensitive material was not published.
"In the interests of national security, the Security Service has over the years carried out many investigations into allegations of espionage based on intelligence which it has acquired. But allegations or even good intelligence are not proof of criminal activity. They are instead the basis for investigative work designed to prevent further damage to the interests of the country. They may in turn help in the end unearth evidence solid enough to put before a court.
"The publication of news articles and television programmes about the Mitrokhin archive and East German Stasi records has led some people to ask that the Government should publish a list of all those against whom allegations of spying and complicity with the KGB and Stasi have been made. There are, however, compelling arguments against doing so which have been accepted by successive Governments.
"First, it would be wrong to compromise the effectiveness of the intelligence and security agencies by revealing the cases on which they may be working. Above and beyond that consideration, it is a long established rule of law that people are innocent until convicted in a court of law. We must not slide into trial by denunciation.
"The Mitrokhin archive has raised some important issues which we are pursuing through an inquiry by the ISC and we wait for its report to see what lessons can be learned. That must not obscure the important value of Mr Mitrokhin's work to this country and to our allies. His archive is a unique testimony to a brave individual who worked alone against tyranny. It is also a reminder, if one were needed, of the continuing value of the work of our security and intelligence services".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the consequences of the traitorous actions described in the Mitrokhin archive were exceptionally damaging to this country and to some individuals and were, of course, designed to be absolutely catastrophic. The whole House will be appalled by the behaviour of the spies, which has been
1298
revealed by the archive. But, equally, the whole House will endorse the Home Secretary's commendation of the bravery of Mr Mitrokhin and also his praise for the security and intelligence services. We also look forward to reading the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on this matter.
I note that the Statement said that the archive did not contain original evidence and so was itself of no direct evidential value. No doubt this influenced the decisions of the Security Service about prosecutions in 1992. However, in the past few weeks there have been some confessions which obviously affect the considerations of possible prosecutions. I am glad that prosecution is being reconsidered. If I may express a personal view, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the new Attorney-General will find it legally possible to approve prosecutions following the confessions. But I do not ask for a comment on that this afternoon from the Home Office. My only regret is that a punishment of banishment to the former Soviet Union will not, in any case, be available to the courts.
Can the Minister confirm that the length of time since the crimes and the age of those concerned will not be limiting factors, particularly in the light of the recent World War II prosecution, which was also for very serious crimes, and, for that matter, the treatment of Senator Pinochet? Can the noble Lord tell the House whether the conditions on publication, which were laid down by the right honourable Sir Malcolm Rifkind—that no allegations of criminal behaviour should be made public unless either the individuals had been convicted, or they had agreed—have been adhered to? If so, how has it come about that some individuals were featured in television programmes and in newspaper articles at the time of publication last month? This has been a most serious affair. We look forward to seeing the committee's report on the details of how it has evolved over a long period of years.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it may be slightly mind-boggling to read that these documents cover the period from 1917 to the 1980s. Therefore, this is one of those rare occasions that allows me to say that these Benches take ministerial responsibility, as do the Opposition and the Government. We also endorse what the Minister said about the continuing value of the work of our security and intelligence services. But that should not make us hold those services in awe. I think that our first base should be that we want security services which catch spies when they are active and alive, not when they are dead or old.
In many ways, the areas covered here belong to another world. I was international secretary of the Labour Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I fully believe that I must have talked to the KGB, the Stasi, MI6, the CIA, BOSS and MOSAD. It was a Cold War world. It is important to get into perspective the things that have changed since then. Indeed, if we go back to some of the hysteria of those days and some of the assumptions that were made by informed commentators—and we now look back with the

1299
information of hindsight—the TUC General Council actually comes out better than the University of Cambridge, if we are measuring patriotism.
When looking at such archives, it is also important to point out, as has been emphasised, that they are notes and jottings; they are not prime sources. It is important to bear that in mind when using words like "criminal" and "offences" as regards people who are named. It is also important to understand the difference between actions by Crown servants who have signed the Official Secrets Act and individual citizens who may be opinionated and freely give their opinions hither and thither but who, in fact, have no disposable secrets to give.
The cases revealed fall into both those categories. In the case of the Crown servants, one has to ask whether a prosecution would succeed on this evidence and whether such prosecutions would be in the public interest. I freely admit—and these Benches admit it—that this is a judgment call. If the Cold War were still at its height, one might say, "prosecute"; but it is over and won. We are dealing with events which took place a long time ago. The following words come to mind:
"Let the dead Past bury its dead!"
So what about the future? Treason is still treason and it is important that we have efficient, effective and accountable security forces. But we must face the fact that if we look at "efficient, effective and accountable" in terms of our security forces, we cannot give them 100 per cent on any of those categories over the period of consideration.
There is still genuine concern about political and parliamentary control of our security forces. As regards the case at hand, from 1992 to 1997 the security forces in many ways acted as judge and jury in terms of what they should reveal, when they should reveal it and to whom they should reveal it. Too often in the past, the security forces have chosen to reveal not to political masters, but to Chapman Pincher, Rupert Allason or Brian Crozier.
We believe that the key is accountability. I must say that in my experience Prime Ministers, Home Secretaries and Foreign Secretaries sometimes get sucked into the security services' "club". The security services committee was always seen as a halfway house. I realise this question is premature but we shall continue to ask it. What is the Government's response to the suggestion of the Home Affairs Select Committee that the security services should now be fully accountable to Parliament? In the mean time, what measures will be put in place to ensure that the ISC is fully informed? It is extremely worrying, and indeed extraordinary, that Mr Tom King and his committee were kept totally ignorant of these matters over the long period that they were in the hands of the security forces.
What is the Government's response to the suggestion made by my colleague Simon Hughes in another place that prosecution of present and former spies should not be the accountable prerogative of security services' officers or Ministers of the day but
1300
should be done on the advice of some special counsel who would be independent of both political pressures and security service influence? There is schizophrenia as regards spies. Mata Hari and the life of Riley, James Bond and Smiley's People all convey glamour and entertainment. Whenever these matters come before Parliament, there is a retreat on the part of politicians because the security services marshal their considerable skills to imply that anyone who questions them is somehow being unpatriotic.
We on these Benches believe that our security services have an important job to perform. Rogue states, drugs, organised crime and international terrorism should all be on their agenda. However, I repeat that to combat those threats we need effective, efficient and accountable security services. We on these Benches believe that if we obtain parliamentary accountability in this regard, effectiveness and efficiency will flow from that.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government are most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord McNally, for their confident support of our security forces and security agencies and for their continued commitment to support the national interest through the national security services. There are, of course, many important questions relating to accountability on which many Members of your Lordships' House will no doubt have different and differing views. That is, of course, an important area of public debate.
I shall try to answer some of the points that have been raised by your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the length of time since crimes occurred and whether the age of those concerned might be a limiting factor. Of course that is an important consideration, but we take the view that whether or not anyone faces prosecution is very much a matter for the prosecuting authorities. It is a matter of public record that those authorities take into account the strength of evidence and the public interest; those must be paramount. Age may, no doubt, enter into the equation, but it can be only a part of that consideration. It must not be the determining factor. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also asked whether the conditions of publication had been properly adhered to. So far as I am aware, the conditions of publication have been properly adhered to and that must continue to be the case. I am grateful to the noble Lord for asking that question.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked a couple of questions about the role of the Home Affairs Select Committee and its views, and about the role to be played by the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is the Government's intention that we co-operate fully with the Intelligence and Security Committee, but we cannot anticipate the committee's conclusions or commit ourselves now to accepting all of its conclusions. We expect that the committee's investigation will be a thorough one; we should expect no less. We shall look carefully at the committee's findings and at the recommendations that it makes.

1301
There may well be lessons to be learnt for the future. We look forward to the contribution which the ISC is able to make in this process. We recognise that there is a debate to be had as regards the ISC's conclusions, our view and the views of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
We hold strongly to the view that no one should be judged as guilty without full evidence being made available. It is entirely a matter for the prosecuting authorities as to who should be prosecuted, where and when. I stick firmly by the point that we must not have trial by denunciation. I believe that to be utterly wrong. The previous government held that to be an important principle, as do Her Majesty's Government today. We need to proceed with great care when following up revelations.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I ask about the trial by denunciation dimension. As I am sure everyone will accept, this is not the first time that selective leaks to by and large Right-wing newspapers by government—as happened in the Gordievsky affair and now—have named a number of people who are thought to have been involved in matters but against whom a prosecution has not been brought. A number of these are my friends and colleagues. I declare an interest. As a professional in a policy studies institute in the 1980s I was involved in conversations with Russians. I recall a Sunday Telegraph half-page article which suggested that the then Christopher Tugendhat and I were dangerously close to being agents of influence in going to meet Yakoulev and Primakov in Moscow.
We have to be concerned about the relationship between the security services and newspapers of a conspiratorial bent. Nowadays The Times and the Telegraph see conspiracy as often in Brussels as in Moscow, but I refer to allowing the security services to give lists of names, many of whom are professionals who have to be engaged—as are all professionals in international relations—in discussions with governments of whom we do not in arty sense approve and with experts working with those governments whom we often suspect of being engaged in intelligence activities. Can we have an assurance that part of the role of the inquiry will be to ensure that the relationship between the security services and such newspapers will be properly investigated in future because a great deal of damage has been done to innocent people, not just on this occasion but even more in the Gordievsky affair and on earlier occasions?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I join other Members of your Lordships' House in repudiating trial by denunciation. I think that it is quite wrong and I have made that clear. The Government hold firmly to that view. Of course, it must be for the ISC to draw its own conclusions. Those conclusions will be shaped and framed by input from Members in another place and no doubt from Members of your Lordships' House and from elsewhere. Clearly, the committee will
1302
draw on a wide range of material in coming to its conclusions and its views with regard to these matters. It must be unfettered in that exercise. It will then quite properly be for the Government to consider our response. Clearly, accountability is an important issue. We shall have to consider those matters carefully. I can say no more than that on that point.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, is the Mitrokhin/Andrew book the only material to be considered by the Intelligence and Security Committee? Will the Minister ensure that that is made freely available in the Library in order that we may read it? I am particularly interested in the Agee and Hosenbal case, for which I was responsible when I was the Home Secretary. It was the first matter to appear on my desk on the day I took up my appointment. Parliament was heavily involved in that material. I am advised that the Agee and Hosenbal case is dealt with in this book—or at least in the material. The case was discussed in Parliament and the material should now be made freely available.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I return to the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. With the agreement of the Prime Minister, he announced on 13th September that the Intelligence and Security Committee was to be asked to conduct an inquiry into the policies and procedures used by the intelligence and security agencies in the handling of the Mitrokhin material. That provides sufficient scope for a wide-ranging consideration of all the issues the noble Lord raised in his earlier comments.
As to The Mitrokhin Archive, I can reveal—it is no great secret—that I have a copy. It consists of 1,000 pages and there are but six references in it to Meli
ta Norwood. In my humble opinion, it is not the best of bedtime reading. I would far prefer to cuddle up in bed with a cup of cocoa and a Ruth Rendell. The Mitrokhin Archive is not at the top of my Christmas book list.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I wish to make three points. First, I have the impression from the Statement—I was very pleased to hear it—that there had been perfectly accountable behaviour by both services in terms of keeping the relevant Ministers informed. Secondly—I think that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will agree—it is not very likely that Mitrokhin would have come to us, as Penkovsky did at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, if he had not felt that he would be given total protection and total secrecy. That is where, unfortunately, the need for professional services comes in. It has nothing to do with the honour and integrity of members of Select Committees; it is to do with training and the t rust that needs to exist in the mind of a potential source who is about to risk his life. That is one reason why I fear it will always be difficult to be very much more open than the services are at present.
That said, I greatly welcome the existence of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It seems to be doing an admirable job. I am sure it will properly

1303
investigate whatever needs to be investigated. However, we should remember that many of the unfortunate events of the past few weeks—and the events earlier which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally—were inspired by the media, not the services. Finally, we should remember, alas, that anything that is said in public in the House of Commons is as available to our enemies as to our friends. It is a hard fact.
Lord Bassam: My Lords, the noble Baroness speaks with great experience and wisdom. She spent her career dealing with these matters and she speaks with a great deal of sense.
The noble Baroness is quite right to say that we must treat Mr Mitrokhin with care. We should be very grateful to him for the work that he carried out. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said, he was very brave and we owe him a great deal. The noble Baroness is also right that anything we say in public may well be used by our enemies elsewhere. We need to be careful and mindful of that.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I listened to it with great interest. I thought it curious that the original Mitrokhin archive appears to remain the private property of Mr Mitrokhin. A number of questions arise from that, although I readily accept that the Minister may not be able to answer them directly.
First, what other resources of the secret services are effectively the private property of individuals who are not under the control of the Official Secrets Act? Secondly, why did not the secret services simply buy the Mitrokhin archive from him, thereby ensuring that it was their property, to deal with as they saw fit? Thirdly, was the reason that the secret services did not have enough money to buy it? I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer my questions directly, but they should be considered.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord asked an interesting question and raised an interesting point. The fact remains, however, that the Mitrokhin archive is the Mitrokhin archive; it is his property. It is for Mr Mitrokhin to use or dispose of the Mitrokhin archive as he wishes. He created the archive; it his personal property. I can assure the noble Lord with honesty and integrity that, as far as I am aware, no other material has been made available to Mr Mitrokhin or Professor Andrew in the creation of the book.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord two questions. First, following on from what was said by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, both security organisations have had the habit of leaking information to a handful of journalists. This has gone on for many years. In many cases it has had a most destructive effect on relations with other organisations within the criminal justice area. Will the Minister draw the comments of my
1304
noble friend to the attention of the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee so that the matter can be looked into?
Secondly, it would be unwise for us to become involved in exposing particular individuals as alleged spies by name. Were we to do so, if criminal proceedings were to be considered it would be very difficult to ensure that relevant matters came before a court because of the amount of pre-trial damage which might be caused to an individual's reputation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is obviously very important. He is quite right; I agree completely with his comments. The noble Lord asked that I pass on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, to the ISC. Those comments are of course publicly recorded in Hansard and I am sure that he will not hesitate to draw them to the attention of the ISC. It would be quite in order and quite proper to do so. His comments were wisely made.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend disagree with one point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally; namely, that, because the ideological war against Soviet Communism is past and has been won, that in some way should be a significant point in determining against any prosecution? If there is usable evidence—whether it be from the archive or from admissions and confessions made by individuals subsequent to the publication of the archive—which reveals what may be very serious consequences following on betrayal, that should be a reason for prosecution rather than the opposite, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
Lord Bassam: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his comments. However, I must decline to comment one way or the other on whether it is right or proper to prosecute. As I said, prosecutions are a matter for the prosecuting authorities. It is their responsibility alone. It cannot be for others to urge or encourage prosecutions. The prosecuting authorities are properly charged with that responsibility
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am provoked by some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to say a word on the question of the responsibility and supervision of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I have served on four Select Committees in the other place; I was intimately concerned with the legislation drawn up to establish the Intelligence and Security Committee; and I served on the committee for the whole of the last Parliament. I started out as something of a sceptic in regard to those arrangements. There are clear distinctions between the powers of a Select Committee and the powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I should also like to say that, having served on that committee for some two-and-a-half years, I was totally converted to the powers and functions of that committee as it exists, and it was certainly my

1305
impression that that view was shared by every member of the committee. It comprised distinguished representatives of the Conservative Party who had served in the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign Office. I hope that my noble friend can confirm that the present membership of that committee is equally satisfied with its powers.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gilbert for that point. I can confirm that the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are entirely happy with their range of powers, duties and responsibilities in this matter. I thank my noble friend for his observations.
Lord McNally: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, the point that I made, and which was followed up by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, was not mine alone. The conclusion of the Home Affairs Select Committee is as follows,
"In our view, it is inevitable that the intelligence services will one day become accountable to Parliament. That is the logical outcome of the process of reform embarked upon by the previous Government".
We agree with that statement.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his further point. We are all familiar with that line of argument. It is an important part of the debate and we fully recognise that.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, will the House allow me to add that if that should ever come to pass, the Government would have a lovely, peaceful life because there would be no intelligence?

Greater London Authority Bill
4.11 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Schedule 16 [Hackney Carriages]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 475ZAA:
Page 267, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) Transport for London may send to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Commissioner of Police for the City of London—

(a) details of a person to whom Transport for London is considering granting a licence under this section, and

(b) a request for the Commissioner's observations; and the Commissioner shall respond to the request.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before I speak to the amendment, it may be appropriate for me to take this opportunity to respond to the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, at the start of business on Tuesday. He asked that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee should have an opportunity to consider the
1306
amendments which the Government have tabled on Report. It is my understanding that the committee met yesterday and concluded that there was no need to draw any of our amendments to the attention of the House. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, has written to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to confirm that. Further, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and his committee for the speed and efficiency with which they have addressed this matter. We all recognise that there was considerable pressure on the committee. I am also grateful that it has presented us with a clean bill of health.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to thank the Minister and in particular to thank my noble friend, Lord Alexander of Weedon for so rapidly casting his eyes and those of his committee over what was an immense volume of work. I was pleased to receive a note from my noble friend and I am equally grateful for the Minister's assurance. I am delighted that the matter has been cleared speedily and amiably.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I turn now to the amendment before us. Amendment No. 475ZAA is a simple but important safety provision. It provides for criminal record checks on would-be taxi drivers. It ensures in particular that. Transport for London can ask the police for a criminal record check; and it requires the police to make such a check.
There is nothing new in this. It is already the practice for checks to be made, in London and elsewhere, and understandably so. It is surely right that people with convictions for crimes of violence or for sexual offences should not be taxi drivers when vulnerable members of the public are travelling alone in their charge.
The London taxi trade is regulated by the Public Carriage Office, which at present is part of the Metropolitan Police. For that reason, a criminal record check is straightforward. In future, the Public Carriage Office will be part of Transport for London, and separate from the police. We therefore need legal provision for those new circumstances. This amendment provides that and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the amendment. Can he clarify one point? What will happen if the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police thinks it inappropriate for an applicant to be granted a licence? Does he rule that the licence will not be granted? I should be grateful to know the position on this matter.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the position will not change. The Public Carriage Office must take account of information received from the police. It will be a

1307
matter of judgment, but in normal circumstances, if a serious offence was involved, I am sure that the licence would not be issued.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, will the Minister clarify one point for me? What is the difference between a hackney carriage and a minicab?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, hackney carriages can ply for hire and are covered by all the regulations that apply to cabs that have been cleared to ply for hire; a minicab must be requested and cannot ply for hire on the street. It may also be of interest to the noble Viscount to know that minicab drivers are already covered by a provision to allow for criminal record checks.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 475A:
Before Clause 225, insert the following new clause—

PROVISION OF FACILITIES TO BENEFIT USERS OF WATERWAYS
(" . Transport for London may provide or secure the provision of such amenities and facilities as it considers would benefit persons using any waterway.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 475AA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 475A, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 475A agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 475B:
After Clause 225, insert the following new clause—

LANDING PLACES: TRANSFER OF CERTAIN RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a landing place was transferred to London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries on or after 31st March 1999 but before this section comes into force, or

(b) after this section comes into force a landing place is transferred to London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries pursuant to an agreement made on or after 31st March 1999 but before this section comes into force.

(2) In this section "qualifying landing place"—

(a) means a landing place transferred as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above, and

(b) includes any property associated with the landing place and transferred with it.

(3) Any agreement—

(a) made between the transferor of a qualifying landing place and the owner of a vessel, or with a waterman in respect of a vessel not owned by him, and

(b) which concerns the use of the qualifying landing place by the vessel,

shall have effect on and after the relevant date in accordance with subsections (4) to (6) below.
(4) The agreement shall have effect as if—

(a) the transferee had been a party to the agreement instead of the transferor;

(b) for any reference to the transferor there were substituted a reference to the transferee;

(c) any reference to any officer or member of staff of the transferor were a reference to such person as the transferee may appoint or, in default of appointment, to the officer or member of staff of the transferee who most closely corresponds to the transferor's officer or member of staff;

and this subsection shall apply whether or not the agreement is capable of being assigned or transferred.
(5) An agreement shall only have effect in accordance with subsection (4) above—

(a) to the extent that the agreement concerns the use of the qualifying landing place by the vessel, and

(b) in relation to things falling to be done under the agreement on or after the relevant date.

(6) An agreement shall not have effect in accordance with subsection (4) above to the extent that the transferor and the transferee have made contrary provision.
(7) For the purposes of this section—
"landing place" means any waterside landing place, pier, jetty, pontoon or other similar installation;
"transferee", in relation to a qualifying landing place. means the body (being London Regional Transport or one of its subsidiaries) to which the landing place is or was transferred as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above;
"transferor", in relation to qualifying landing place, means the person by whom the landing place is or was transferred to a transferee as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above;
"relevant date", in the case of a qualifying landing place, means—

(a) the date when this section comes into force if on that date the landing place has been transferred to a transferee, or

(b) if the landing place has not been so transferred, the date when it is transferred to the transferee;

"waterman" means a person who navigates a vessel used for carrying passengers for reward.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is aware of concerns that have been expressed on behalf of those who provide tourist bus services on the river under contracts drawn up, I believe, with the PLA, which will run until 2002. The operators are concerned that under this new clause all the property will move to TfL. They do not know whether the ticketing kiosks form part of the jetties and quays, and so forth. The operators have used their own funds to provide those ticketing kiosks. Furthermore, they have wider concerns that in the future they will be dealing with an authority whose sole concern is that of public transport, whereas previously their Ministry, as it were, has been the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Different contractual arrangements apply between themselves and the PLA than are likely to obtain with TfL or its subsidiary—or whatever London River Services will be called when it becomes a subsidiary of TfL rather than, as it is now, a subsidiary of London Transport.

1309
I should like to put some questions to the Minister. First, has he consulted on this matter with Janet Anderson MP, who is the Minister responsible for this area at the DCMS? Secondly, how does he think such tourist services will be run, possibly in competition with public transport services, in the interim period between the creation of TfL and the possible—some seem to think inevitable—creation of a strategy for the River Thames? Once such a strategy is created, it will bear in mind the needs of tourists and the services for tourists provided on the river. The providers of tourism services fear that they will be put into direct competition with public service providers working off the same jetties and along the same routes and that they will therefore have their current contractual arrangements in effect spoilt.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of the general concern which the noble Baroness and her noble friend Lord Thurso have raised but I am not sure that I am able to give a reply to all of those details. I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no sinister purpose behind the clause. We are merely transferring from the PLA to London Transport, and thereafter to Transport for London, all the contractual and other liabilities associated with piers. That is common sense. The reason that some operators are concerned is that they are engaged in ongoing negotiations with the new pier owners, London River Services, itself a subsidiary of London Transport. Ongoing negotiations will, of course, continue. I have no wish to become involved in the details of those negotiations. Nothing changes in terms of the nature of those negotiations—simply the ownership of the infrastructure. I cannot answer the noble Baroness's specific point about infrastructure that has been separately provided. I am confident that the property and legal position will not change.
As far as concerns the broader point, the Government are supportive of the excellent strides that London River Services has made during the short period it has been in existence. We are fully supportive of its objectives, which include the tourism objective. My department has worked closely with the DCMS on this matter and will continue to do so. I therefore believe that it is an unfounded fear that the tourism dimension would disappear with these new arrangements. I undertake to write to the noble Baroness on her other points.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 227 [Designation of first GLA roads]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 476:
Page 125, line 34, at end insert—
("(4) No order may be made under this section in respect of any road unless a draft of such proposed order has been circulated to all local authorities within Greater London for a consultation period of at least nine months' duration, and the responses of such authorities to such draft order have been received and considered, and no order may be made designating a road as a GLA road with effect from a date prior to the end of such period of consultation and consideration.
(5) No order may be made under this section in respect of a road within the City if before the end of the consultation period referred to in subsection (4) above the Common Council have objected that such proposed order would adversely affect either—

(a) the integrity of any traffic management scheme within the City of London operated by or on behalf of the Common Council on the day before the Greater London Authority Act 1919 received Royal Assent, or

(b) the ability of the Common Council to ensure, or to assist and facilitate those responsible for ensuring, the security of the City of London and the people and businesses resident within it."").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall not be moving this amendment or Amendment No. 479 as the issue will be better covered in the Government's group of amendments. However, I shall be speaking to Amendment No. 477 when it is called.
[Amendment No.476 not moved.]
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 477:
Page 125, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not make any order under this section in respect of any highway or proposed highway for which a London borough council or the Common Council is the highway authority, unless he has given 2 months' notice of the proposed order to the highway authority and considered any representations made."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 478. The amendment focuses a consultation requirement on the Secretary of State before he makes an order under Clause 227, which designates which roads will be GLA roads. It is clearly in the public interest for there to be a reasonable consultation period before this action is taken. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify one point. The noble Earl has not moved Amendment No. 476. Can he say which other amendments in the group he does not intend to move?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, Amendment No. 476, which I did not move, was the ring of steel amendment. The Minister has made concessions and I therefore thought it would be better not to move that amendment and wait until we discuss the Minister's amendment. I have moved Amendment No. 477 and spoken to Amendment No. 478, which deal with Clause 227. I hope that that is helpful to the Minister.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, are we therefore abandoning the other grouped amendments? It is difficult to know what is happening.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 477 is to require a two-month consultation period with the boroughs when the Secretary of State designates the first GLA roads. That seems a somewhat arbitrary timetable for consultation. Most of the designation of the roads is pretty much agreed.

1311
If there are problems, it may well take less or more than two months to sort them out. It is also the case that we should not be in a situation where one London borough could exercise a right of veto over the total strategic position. As I understand the noble Earl's amendment, it would give London boroughs individually a veto over these proposals.
Amendment No. 478 would allow the designation of a road as a GLA road only if it is of strategic importance in determining the mayor's integrated transport strategy. It would prevent the Secretary of State including side roads off the GLA road network within the definition. We shall deal with the issue of side roads later, but what is proposed does not seem appropriate. I believe the amendment is therefore redundant in any case. The whole designation and description of Greater London strategic roads is that they are part of a strategic transport policy. However, there may be side roads which would not obviously be strategic were it not for the fact that they were part of a one way system or linkage system. One can think of an example not very far from your Lordships' House—around Victoria Station. It is designated a strategic road although, if one studies a map, it might not look strategic. The amendment, I believe, could lead to some misunderstanding. I hope that the noble Earl will not pursue it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I apologise if I slightly threw him by not moving the first amendment in the group. It will be interesting to see what happens when we focus the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 478 not moved.]
Clause 228 [Orders by the authority changing what are GLA roads]:
[Amendment Nos. 479 and 480 not moved.]
Clause 229 [Certification, lists and maps of GLA roads]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 480A:
Page 127, line 4, leave out ("list of, and a map showing,") and insert ("record or).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 480B to 480F. This group of amendments seeks to give Transport for London greater flexibility in the way it maintains the definitive record of which roads are GLA roads. As the Bill stands, Transport for London would have to prepare and maintain both a list of, and a map showing, the highways and proposed highways which are GLA roads.
However, when the Secretary of State defines the first GLA roads, the Bill does not specify how the roads are to be identified. The Secretary of State could choose to define the network by means of a list or a map, or a combination of both methods. We think it right that Transport for London should have the same freedom to keep the definitive record of the network in the form it thinks appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 480B to 480F:
Page 127, line 5, leave out ("and proposed highways").
Page 127, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) The record required to be prepared and maintained under subsection (3) above may consist of—

(a) a list;

(b) a map; or

(c) a list and a map.").

Page 127, line 7, leave out ("list and of that map") and insert ("record").
Page 127, line 12, leave out ("list and map") and insert ("record").
Page 127, line 13, leave out ("list and map") and insert ("record").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 230 [Supplementary provisions]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 480G:
Page 127, line 31, after ("Mayor") insert ("of London").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 480H. These two amendments make minor technical changes to the Highways Act 1980 to ensure that the references to the mayor and assembly are freestanding with that Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 480H:
Page 127, line 33, after ("the") insert ("London").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 231 [Exercise of powers so as to affect another authority's roads]:
4.30 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 481:
Page 128, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (11 A) below,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 482, 483, 484, 492 and 493.
We return to the thorny issue of the word "affect". The question has been raised as to how far the GLA/TfL will be able to interfere in local decisions through their control over GLA roads.
Various clauses insert new sections into the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 giving the GLA a veto over local decisions in respect of roads. This therefore appears to be the appropriate place to peg back GLA power by clarifying the basis on which it can act.
There is a serious question as to the meaning of "affect". This amendment would usefully end the uncertainty. Virtually anything, however trivial, that a London borough does will affect a road in another borough, especially if the two roads concerned are adjacent. As there is a need to notify, and that is subject to a one-month expiry period as provided for

1313
in subsection (3), that means that the London boroughs will always have a bureaucratic and statutory delay of one month imposed on any action which will not even have a substantial effect, if I can turn matters round the other way. It is important to make sure that consultation is not required for trivial matters. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I question the purpose of the amendment. I believe it to be otiose—but no doubt my noble friend will be able to correct one or other of us on that point. If the matter were deemed to be de minimis in terms of the effect that it might have, it could not be capable of being upheld in the courts. Therefore, I wonder what value the word "substantially" would have in this respect.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said in Committee in response to a similar amendment, the provisions in Clause 231 are modelled on current arrangements for designated roads and priority routes. The arrangements and the terminology have worked well for a number of years. The concept of "affect or likely to affect" is therefore well established and well understood. It is also possible that, should there be any confusion, the mayor would be able to issue guidance on the operation of these proceedings.
Changing a well understood formula would, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis indicated, introduce an element of doubt as to whether previous operations had been changed, and it might well lead to some legal dubiety; whereas most people who operate the highways within London understand how the previous arrangements have worked. Therefore, we do not think it sensible to make a change. Amendments which change a formulation which has stood the test of time are usually not appropriate and would merely create uncertainty.
The noble Earl's objective of trying to exclude minor issues is understood. Currently, minor matters are excluded, and will be in future, because the mayor will have the same power as the Secretary of State to exclude them. It will be in his interests to do so in order to reduce bureaucracy. It would not be helpful for the noble Earl to pursue this change.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this short debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 482 and 483 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments No. 483A:
Page 129, line 34, at end insert—
("(11 A) Any reference in this section to a GLA road includes a reference to a GLA side road, within the meaning of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see sections 124A(9) and 142(1) of that Act).").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group.
We have brought forward these amendments in response to concerns expressed by the Association of London Government that Transport for London should not be the highway authority for side roads to the GLA road network.
When we announced last February the Government's intentions for the GLA road network, we said that we were minded to include in it those short stretches of side road which were necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the main roads. That was an indication of intent. But we then heard representations from London's local authorities. They said that they did not think that that was sensible. We obviously, therefore, reconsidered our position. To say the least, that proved to be a somewhat complex matter and so it has taken some time and has required a number of meetings both at official and ministerial level to attempt to resolve it.
In Committee in July, I explained that the discussions were still ongoing. I am now able to report that, following the discussions held by my former colleague, Glenda Jackson. with the ALG later in July, we were able to reach a consensus on a practical way for TfL to have a measure of control over these short stretches of side road. Transport for London is to be the traffic authority for a new category of road known as "GLA side roads", but the local borough remains the highway authority. That is what the amendments before the House seek to ensure.
The key amendment in this group is Amendment No. 485ZA. It amends the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to provide the Secretary of State with the power to designate roads which are to be GLA side roads, in much the same way as Clause 227 provides for him to designate the first GLA road network.
Once the first GLA side roads have been defined, the Secretary of State can by order apply, for such modifications as he sees fit, the provisions of Sections 14B and 14C of the Highways Act 1980. The provisions will enable the mayor to change and to keep records of the GLA road network. That can also be applied to GLA side roads by order of the Secretary of State.
We have not sought to amend the Bill to set out in full the procedure for changing roads. Had we done so, your Lordships would, I regret to say, be faced with even more amendments. That is why we have taken the approach of an order-making power. After the long discussions that we have had with the boroughs in London and their professionals, we see this as the best way forward and it has been agreed among us.
The other amendments in this group, including this one, Amendment No. 483A, are effectively consequential amendments to Amendment No. 485ZA. They give effect to the intentions that I have spelt out. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, in Committee we were concerned regarding the ring of steel and the position of the City. In part the Minister has met our concerns with his amendment and we are grateful. There is a residual concern regarding side roads that haw been

1315
stopped up as part of the ring of steel. We are worried that they could be opened up, against the wishes of the City. Can the Minister give me any assurance on that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in the procedures for consultation and any change on the side roads, the City would remain the highways authority for the side roads. The GLA would be the traffic authority. Therefore, one hopes that the two could reach consensus. If they did not, on physical matters such as stopping up the road I assume that the position of the highways authority would be the determining one. Therefore, the City's position is maintained.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 484 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 484YA:
Page 129, line 39, at end insert ("or GLA side roads").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 484ZA:
After Clause 231. insert the following new clause—

CONSULTATION BETWEEN SECRETARY OF STATE AND HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OVER CERTAIN PROPOSALS FOR ROYAL PARKS OR HIGHWAYS
(" . After section 301 of the Highways Act 1980 there shall be inserted—
Royal Parks or highways in London affected by proposals relating to the other.
301B.—(1) The Secretary of State shall not exercise any of his functions in relation to the management of roads or traffic in a Royal Park in such a way as to affect a highway in Greater London unless he has consulted the highway authority for the highway about the exercise of those functions in that way.
(2) A highway authority shall not exercise any of its functions in relation to a highway in Greater London in such a way as to affect a Royal Park unless it has consulted the Secretary of State about the exercise of those functions in that way.
(3) The duty imposed by subsection (1) or (2) shall not apply if it would not be reasonably practicable for the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the highway authority to consult the other before exercising functions; but, in such a case, as soon as practicable after so exercising functions the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the highway authority shall inform the other that those functions have been so exercised.
(4) In this section "Royal Park" means any park to which the Parks Regulation Act 1872 applies (see sections 1 and 3 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926)".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 484A:
After Clause 231. insert the following new clause—

CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN ROAD HUMPS IN LONDON HIGHWAYS
(" .—(1) The Highways Act 1980 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 90A(1) (construction of road humps by highway authority) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "or

(c) (whether or not the highway is subject to such a limit) the road humps fall within section 90CA below."

(3) After section 90C there shall be inserted—
"Special procedure for certain road humps in London.
90CA.—(1) A road hump falls within this section if—

(a) it is constructed by a local highway authority in Greater London, and

(b) the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) have been complied with.

(2) The requirement of this subsection is that before starting to construct the road hump the authority concerned gives the Secretary of State notice stating—

(a) the nature, dimensions and location of the proposed road hump,

(b) the spacing between the proposed road hump and any other humps constructed, or proposed to be constructed, in the vicinity,

(c) the type and description of signs which are proposed to be located in the highway in connection with the proposed hump.

(d) the statutory speed limit for motor vehicles to which the highway where it is proposed to construct the hump is subject, and

(e) the period (of not less than one month) within which, and the address to which, the Secretary of State may send any comments on the proposal to the authority.

(3) The requirement of this subsection is that in deciding

(a) whether to proceed with the construction of the road hump, and

(b) what the nature, dimensions and location of the road hump as constructed are to be,

the authority concerned has regard to any comments made by the Secretary of State within the period stated in the notice.".
(4) After section 90D(4) there shall be inserted
"(5) Regulations under this section do not apply where a road hump falls within section 90CA above.".
(5) In section 90E(1) for the words from "Where" to "satisfied" there shall be substituted "Where the requirements of subsections (1A), (1B) or (1C) are satisfied in relation to a road hump".
(6) After section 90E(1) there shall be inserted—"
(1A) The requirements of this subsection are that—

(a) regulations under section 90D above apply to the road hump,

(b) the road hump conforms to the regulations, and

(c) if the road hump is in a highway maintainable at the public expense. the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are satisfied.

(1B) The requirements of this subsection are that—

(a) the road hump is specially authorised by the Secretary of State,

(b) the road hump conforms with the conditions attached to the authorisation, and

1317

(c) if the road hump is in a highway maintainable at the public expense, the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are satisfied.

(1C) The requirements of this subsection (1) are that—

(a) the road hump falls within section 90CA, and

(b) if the road hump is in a highway maintainable at the public expense, the condition mentioned in subsection (2)(a) below is satisfied.".

(7) Section 90E(3) shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I wish to speak also to the other amendments in the group. In our White Paper we said that traffic calming measures and stopping up orders on borough roads would be purely a matter for the boroughs. These amendments give effect to that commitment and reflect one of the overall aims of the GLA Bill, which is to devolve power to the appropriate level of government in London.
Among other things this group of government amendments provides that where boroughs propose to introduce non-standard traffic calming schemes they must notify the Secretary of State and take into account any comments. They are also required to continue to consult bodies such as the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. This is a sensible group of amendments which I commend to the House as a welcome devolution of power from the Secretary of State to the London boroughs. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I understand the principle underlying the provisions. It is an important one in relation to traffic calming measures. However, there seems to be a lack of uniformity in London boroughs about the dimensions of road humps. Some are higher than others. Even travelling at a modest speed—which is the intention—some damage can be done to the underside of the vehicle. What is the likely policy of the Secretary of State? Is there to be a measure of uniformity? That would seem common sense in relation to the liability of traffic calming measures. An unnecessary obstacle ought to be avoided. What reasons would there be for not having uniformity in this regard? I do not claim expertise but it seems to me that the differential in terms of measurements is undesirable.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, says that consultation with the LFCDA and others will continue. But the LFCDA is worried that that is not what the new clauses mean. It is stated that road humps can be installed without complying with the regulations. Those regulations insist that consultation should take place. Obviously, the fire brigade desires, indeed insists, that it should take place. I understand that it contacted the Government Office for London which confirmed that there was no intention to include consultation but suggested that new regulations to require that would be forthcoming once the GLA Bill was enacted. The LFCDA is receiving mixed messages. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the situation and say whether it is
1318
his intention to bring forward new regulations on consultation with the London Fire Brigade once the Bill is passed. If not, can he tell us where in the Bill it is clearly written that consultation will continue to take place?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the matter to which my noble friend alludes is important for all the emergency services. I wish to follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It seems to me that road humps and traffic calming measures are treated differently but both achieve the same end. There is a certain fashion in traffic calming measures. One year, one gets chicanes; another year, road humps; another year, mini-roundabouts and so on. Occasionally, there follows a spate of accidents. The traffic calming measures are found not to be calming but causing accidents and they are removed. Does reference have to be made to the Secretary of State about the removal of what were standard or specifically approved traffic calming measures or road humps?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have difficulty with one of the amendments and I shall have to test your Lordships' patience in explaining why. I am still unclear why the proposals are necessary. There is, however, a greater difficulty. All noble Lords are well aware that for the government of the day there are only three types of amendments: unworkable, unnecessary or defective. Governments will always hold that defective drafting is fatal to an opposition amendment that they do not support.
It may be that the Minister can convince me and the House that his amendment is workable and necessary. Unfortunately, Amendment No. 497A is defective. The Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) empowers the Secretary of State to stop up or divert highways for development to be carried out. Amendment No. 497A removes the Secretary of State's power in London and transfers it to the London boroughs. There is no apparent justification as to why London is treated differently. The provision is inconsistent with other powers. I do not understand why the power has been handed right down to the boroughs and does not stop with the mayor. The Minister is always persuasive and no doubt he can convince the House of that need. However, unfortunately I do not see how he can explain why the Common Council of the City of London does not benefit from his amendment.
In the TCPA, the council of a London borough, under Section 336(1), includes the Common Council unless the context indicates otherwise. Section 247(3)(b) mentions,
"a London borough council specified in the order or, if it is so specified, the Common Council of the City of London'`.
The Minister's amendment introduces a new subsection (2A) into Section 247 of the TCPA which allows the council of a London borough by order to,
"authorise the stopping up or diversion of any highway".

1319
It does not mention the Common Council of the City. Given that it is mentioned as an alternative to a London borough in the same section, surely the Common Council cannot benefit from the Minister's amendment. That may be the effect that the Minister desires. If so, we will have to check later to ascertain whether it is acceptable to ourselves.
Paragraph 7(7) contains a serious defect. The new subsection (5A)(c) of Section 252 of the TCPA refers to,
"or transporter as are mentioned in that subsection",
that is, subsection (4). Unfortunately, that subsection refers to a public gas supplier, not a transporter.
There is a further difficulty in paragraph 6 which applies the provisions of Section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (the LGA) relating to evidence and costs at inquiries. Paragraph 7(8) of the amendment purports to apply these provisions to inquiries ordered by London boroughs. Unfortunately, subsections (4) and (5) of that section refer specifically to,
"Where a Minister causes an inquiry to be held".
Those subsections allow costs to be awarded. The amendments in this schedule do not extend the power in the LGA to a situation where a London borough rather than the Minister causes an inquiry to be held. They are, therefore, defective and we cannot allow them to go on to the face of the Bill.
There also appear to be difficulties with paragraph 8 of the new schedule. At present, the relevant section allows the Secretary of State to make an order after considering objections to any inspector's report. The amendment allows the mayor to make an order but the rest of the provisions give the order-making powers to the London boroughs. This problem arises because the order-making powers are not transferred when a London borough causes an inquiry to be held and it reports to that London borough and not the mayor. The amendment does not specify what orders the mayor may make. The error may be explained by the summary of the subsection,
"confirmation of order after local inquiry".
These orders are not made by an authority at one level and confirmed by another. In the existing legislation they are all made by the Secretary of State. The amendment appears to try to bring in the mayor to confirm the order but the statutory framework does not provide for confirmation. These orders are usually sought only when planning permission has been obtained. Section 253 allows the order process to begin earlier in respect of local government, statutory undertaker development or if the planning application has been either called in by the Secretary of State or is being appealed to him. The latter provisions allow objectors to the highways orders to be heard at the same inquiry as the planning application and the decisions can be issued at the same time.
1320
These amendments mean that the ability to run applications together will be lost if the Secretary of State does not have power to make the orders in London. Is that what the Minister intends? Is he content with that situation?
Paragraph 9 appears to allow a London borough to make temporary stopping-up orders for highways that are affected by mineral workings. I sometimes wonder where any mineral workings will be in the GLA area, but that is what we face. The amendment sits uncomfortably with the power of local planning authorities to make orders to stop up or divert footpaths and bridleways (Section 257 of the TCPA). If objections are made, those orders are subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. This amendment gives London boroughs the choice between seeking the Secretary of State's confirmation under Section 257 or making the order under Section 248 with some procedure involving the mayor. It is not obvious why that should be so. Can the Minister explain why?
Many of these amendments are fatally flawed; alternatively, they might not have the effect that the Minister intends. The defects illustrate our worst fears that the Bill may contain some even more serious time-bombs that are ticking away. We cannot detect them all, and no doubt some will escape our attention and even that of the Minister. I suggest that the Minister takes these amendments away and revises them. The Minister would never accept one of our amendments if it was defective, and I hope that he will not try to put defective amendments on the face of the Bill. If he is tempted to do so, we shall oppose Amendment No. 497A when we come to it in the Marshalled List.
I am sorry to have taken so long, but the Minister has tabled a huge raft of amendments to cover different issues. I have focused on one amendment that covers a large schedule which gives rise to a problem. Because it is defective in several places, I have had to address a good number of issues.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl and other speakers in this debate have touched on a range of issues. I am aware that road humps cause a certain amount of controversy, in whatever context they are debated. In response to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, who I am sure always drives at a modest speed whether or not there are road humps, I point out that existing road humps must comply with regulations. Traffic-calming measures come in a whole range of different sizes, shapes and situations based on advice from the Highways Agency and our other technical staff. Some of them are larger or higher than others; some cover part of the road or the whole road, but there are specifications for those standards, and existing road humps should comply with the regulations.
Inevitably, there is a certain amount of experimentation in the field of traffic calming and traffic management. Therefore, on occasion, nonstandard road humps and other engineering changes

1321
are proposed. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must approve them, and that is provided for in Amendments Nos. 484A and 484B.
The intention behind all of these amendments, which effectively fulfil our commitment in the White Paper to push this range of decisions away from the Secretary of State and towards the boroughs, will be widely welcomed in London. We have followed this through in the earlier amendments to the clause. At various points we have included the mayor in the structure of consultation. There will have to be consultation under different powers in this Bill, in the Town and Country Planning Act and in the Highways Act about the provisions that deal with humps.
As to the fire and civil defence authority, I understand that there are anxieties in that area. However, I believe that my commitment that the present requirement for consultation with the emergency services will continue to apply will reassure the fire and civil defence authority.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, perhaps he will confirm precisely what will be the consultation arrangements with the emergency authorities. This is an important point which deserves specific attention.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the point I make is that there is nothing in this group of amendments which changes the present consultation. I can in writing cross-refer the noble Baroness to other regulations, but the point I seek to make both to the House and to those on the current and future authority is that there will be no less consultation than before. I am aware that the emergency services have anxieties about some traffic-calming measures. It is important that they are built into consultation on those issues.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, concentrated mainly on Amendment No. 497A which deals with a rather lengthy schedule containing a number of provisions. The main provisions are that a borough, including one that acts on behalf of another, will itself be able to make unopposed stopping-up orders and decisions that are opposed will be made by the mayor. The mayor will also be able to dispense with a public inquiry if the mayor so sees fit. At present, the cost, another issue raised by the noble Earl, of making stopping-up orders falls on the Secretary of State. In devolving that role to London boroughs we intend to use the order-making powers to enable them to charge the applicant. They are Secretary of State order-making powers but they will allow the London borough to make the charge. Before we finally make such an order there will be wide consultation.
The noble Earl asked a number of questions relating to the cross referencing of these provisions with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. There are also cross-references to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which are, therefore, not apparent and explicit on the face of the amendment. He also asked whether the references to London boroughs included the Common Council of the City of London. I am reasonably confident that the definition of the
1322
London authorities in this context includes the City of London. However, I am not absolutely confident. Because of the complexity of the cross-references to other legislation which is not immediately to hand to noble Lords, and because of my uncertainty in relation to the City, with the leave of the House I shall not proceed with that amendment and will try to clarify the situation for noble Lords opposite between now and Third Reading. I beg to move the first amendment, but I shall not move Amendment No. 497A at the appropriate time.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 484B:
After Clause 231, insert the following new clause—

CERTAIN TRAFFIC CALMING WORKS IN LONDON
(" .—(1) The Highways Act 1980 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 90G(1) (powers to carry out traffic calming works) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "or

(c) fall within section 90GA below,".

(3) In section 90G(2) for "subsection (1)" there shall be inserted "subsection (1)(a) or (b)".
(4) After section 90G there shall be inserted—
Special procedure for certain traffic calming works in London.
90GA.—(1) Traffic calming works fall within this section if—

(a) the works are constructed by a local highway authority in Greater London, and

(b) the requirements of subsection (2) and (3) have been complied with.

(2) The requirement of this subsection is that before starting to construct the works the authority concerned gives the Secretary of State notice stating—

(a) the nature, dimensions and locations of the proposed works,

(b) the type and description of signs which are proposed to be located in the highway in connection with the proposed hump, and

(c) the period (of not less than one month) within which. and the address to which, the Secretary of State may send any comments on the proposal to the authority.

(4) The requirement of this subsection is that in deciding—

(a) whether to proceed with the construction of the works, and

(b) what the nature, dimensions and location of the works as constructed are to be,

the authority concerned has regard to any comments made by the Secretary of State within the period stated in the notice.".
(5) In section 901 for the words from "Works" to "authorisation" there shall be substituted—
"(1) Works (whenever constructed) to which this subsection applies".
(6) After section 90I there shall be inserted—
"(2) Subsection (1) applies—

(a) to works of a description prescribed by regulations under section 90H above or specially authorised under section 90G above which conform to any requirements imposed by the regulations or authorisation, and

(b) to works which fall within section 90GA.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 484C:
After Clause 231. insert the following new clause—

STOPPING UP: ORDERS BY LONDON COUNCILS
(" . Schedule (Stopping up: orders by London councils) (which contains amendments to the Highways Act 1980 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) shall have effect.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 485 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 485ZA:
After Clause 232, insert the following new clause

GLA SIDE ROADS
(" .After section 124 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 there shall be inserted—
"GLA side roads.
124A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order designate roads or proposed roads as roads which are to be GLA side roads.
(2) Any road or proposed road so designated shall become a GLA side road on such date as may be specified in the order.
(3) A road may only be a GLA side road if it has a junction with—

(a) a GLA road; or

(b) another road which has a junction with a GLA road.

(4) A road or proposed road shall not be a GLA side road if it is a trunk road or other highway for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority.
(5) A road may only be a GLA side road if and to the extent that the appropriate authority considers it appropriate for the road to be a GLA side road in the interests of the management of traffic and the control of the waiting and loading of vehicles on or in the immediate vicinity of GLA roads.
(6) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for or in connection with applying in relation to GLA side roads, with such modifications as he thinks fit, the provisions of sections 14B and 14C of the Highways Act 1980 (orders changing what are GLA roads and certification and records of GLA roads).
(7) The provision that may be made under subsection (6) above is subject to subsections (3) to (5) above.
(8) In this section "the appropriate authority" means—

(a) in relation to an order under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State:

(b) in relation to an order made by the Greater London Authority under section 14B of the Highways Act 1980, as applied under subsection (6) above, the Mayor of London; and

(c) in relation to confirmation of such an order by the Secretary of State under that section as so applied, the Secretary of State.

(9) Any reference in any provision of this Act or any other enactment to a GLA side road shall be construed as a reference to a road in Greater London which is for the time being a GLA side road by virtue of—

(a) an order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above; or

(b) an order made by the Greater London Authority under section I 4B of the Highways Act 1980, as applied by an order under subsection (6) above.

(10) Any functions conferred or imposed on the Greater London Authority in relation to GLA side roads shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor of London acting on behalf of the Authority.
(11) Subsection (10) above does not apply in relation to any functions expressly conferred on the London Assembly.
(12) Any power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and a statutory instrument containing any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 233 [Power to place traffic signs in connection with GLA roads]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 485A:
Page 130, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) the words "in their area" shall be omitted; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 487A to 487C, and 576A. This group of amendments arises largely out of representations made by the Transport Committee for London which represents all the London boroughs. It asked us to amend the Bill so that when TfL changes the operating cycle of traffic lights which are on borough roads, or installs new traffic lights on borough roads, there will be a clear requirement to consult the relevant borough council. I am pleased to be able to oblige both representations from the boroughs. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 486 not moved.]
Clause 235 [Transfer of London Traffic Control System to Transport for London]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 486A:
Page 132, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Any reference in this section to a GLA road includes a reference to a GLA side road.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 236 [London borough councils and the London traffic control system]:
[Amendment No. 487 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 487A:
Page 133, line 4, at end insert—
("(5A) Before Transport for London

(a) changes the operating cycle, or the timing of the operating cycle, of any traffic light installations provided on a road in Greater London which is neither a GLA road nor a trunk road, or

(b) provides new traffic light installations for such a road,

Transport for London shall consult the council of the London borough in which the installations are or are to be provided.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 487B:
Page 133, line 10, at end insert (" or

(b) by a scheme under subsection (1) or (3) of section 74B of this Act transferring functions of the Secretary of State to Transport for London;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 238 [Traffic authority for certain traffic signs in Greater London]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 487C:
Page 134, line 18, leave out from ("or) to end of line 19 and insert ("sections 65, 73, 74, 74A, 74B and 75 of this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 488 not moved.]
Clause 241 [Designation of paying parking places on highways]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 488A:
Page 137, leave out lines 10 and 11.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 242 [Financial provisions relating to parking places on the highway]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 489:
Page 138, line 11. leave out (" 71(2)(c)") and insert (" 71(4)(c)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 490 not moved.]
Clause 245 [Special parking areas]:
[Amendment No. 491 not moved.]
Clause 247 [Interpretation of parking provisions]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 491A:
Page 142, line 25, at end insert—
("""GLA side road" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see sections 124A(9) and section 142(1) of that Act;";").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 491B:
Page 142, line 40, at end insert—
("(1C) In this Part of this Act, any reference to a GLA road includes a reference to a GLA side road."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 251 [London borough council affecting another authority's roads]:
[Amendments Nos. 492 and 493 not moved.]
Clause 252 [Interpretation of the Road Traffic. Regulation Act 1984]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 493A:
Page 146, line 10, after ("road"") insert ("(subject to subsection (4) below)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 493B:
Page 146, line 11, at end insert—
("""GLA side road" shall be construed in accordance with section 124A(9) of this Act;";").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 493C:
Page 146, line 13, at end insert
("( ) At the end of section 142 there shall be added —
"(4) Any reference in this Act to a GLA road includes a reference to a GLA side road."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 493D:
After Clause 252, insert the following new clause

CONSULTATION BY SECRETARY OF STATE AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OVER CERTAIN PROPOSALS? FOR ROYAL PARKS OR HIGHWAYS
(" . After section 132 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 there shall be inserted—
Royal Parks or highways in London affected by proposals relating to the other.
132AA.—(1) The Secretary of State shall not exercise any of his functions in relation to the management of roads or traffic in a Royal Park in such a way as to affect a highway in Greater London unless he has consulted—

(a) the traffic authority for the highway, and

(b) Transport for London,

about the exercise of those functions in that way.
(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) shall not Apply if it would not be reasonably practicable for the Secretary of State to consult the traffic authority or Transport for London before exercising functions; but, in such a case, as soon as practicable after so exercising functions the Secretary of State shall inform the traffic authority and Transport for London that those functions have been so exercised.
(3) A traffic authority shall not exercise any of its functions in relation to a highway in Greater London in such a way as to affect a Royal Park unless it has consulted the Secretary of State about the exercise of those functions in that way.
(4) The duty imposed by subsection (3) shall not apply if it would not be reasonably practicable for the traffic authority to consult the Secretary of State before exercising functions; but, in such a case, as soon as practicable after so exercising functions the highway authority shall inform the Secretary of State that those functions have been so exercised.
(5) In this section "Royal Park" means any park to which the Parks Regulation Act 1872 applies (see sections 1 and 3 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926)".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 253 [Repeal of certain enactments]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 493E:
Page 147, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Any reference in this section to a GLA road includes a reference to a GLA side road.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 254 [Road user charging]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 494:
Page 147, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) The net proceeds from each scheme established under subsection (1) above shall, during the scheme's initial period as defined by paragraph 16 of Schedule 18, be applied solely for the purpose of implementing the Mayor's transport strategy.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 509,501 to 507, and 516 to 522. The arguments surrounding these amendments were well rehearsed in Committee. Amendment No. 494 would put on the face of the Bill, first, a statement that as regards road user charging:
"The net proceeds from each scheme established under [the subsection] shall, during the scheme's initial period as defined by paragraph 16 of Schedule 18, be applied solely for the purpose of implementing the Mayor's transport strategy".
Amendments Nos. 501 to 507 amend Schedule 18 in order to lengthen the time during which that hypothecation shall last in the case of each scheme established during the initial period after the creation of the GLA. Amendments Nos. 509 and 516 to 522 amend Clause 255 and Schedule 19.
The objective is, first, to put hypothecation firmly on the face of the Bill, and, secondly, to lengthen the time for each scheme during which that hypothecation will be required. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, these are some of the most significant amendments in this part of the Bill. Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara deal with similar issues.
No doubt the Secretary of State is proud of his achievements in getting the Treasury to accept hypothecation. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with a Second Reading speech. However, my fear is that the new taxes will simply force the less well off to use public transport while allowing the more affluent to take up the spare capacity so created.
Londoners will not expect us to allow congestion charges to go the same way as the road fund licence scheme, which is now known as vehicle excise duty and is an important revenue scheme for central government. Sadly, vital road safety and capacity improvements remain to be started. The public transport system in London is woefully short of capacity at the ever extending peak period. For instance, at Victoria Station this morning there were hardly any spare places on the downward escalator. In other words, it physically cannot move any more passengers. As an aside, I was extremely disappointed that nowhere on the station concourse was I able to find a ticket machine which would take notes.
Part of the solution to the problem of transport in London will be buses and investment in the Underground. It is important to understand that the time required to construct new rail facilities is considerable and the payback period may stretch into
1328
decades. Unfortunately, the Government's hypothecation runs only to one decade. That is simply not good enough.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, offered one possible and attractive solution to the problem. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will shortly be proposing another. The House might not be in a mood to decide this issue tonight, but we must reach a conclusion on Third Reading. The two amendments are not necessarily mutually exclusive and our debate tonight will better inform us in our decision making. The Minister may even be able to make a helpful suggestion himself.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl ends his speech with a challenge. I hope that I can make a useful suggestion. Everyone in this Chamber and more widely recognises the important breakthrough that the proposition on congestion charging and hypothecation makes to the future funding of transport infrastructure and the quality of the system within London.
When the noble Earl began, I thought that he was making a Second Reading speech, but clearly he has concerns about the proposition. His noble friend's amendment and the amendment we are considering effectively accept that we shall engage in a system of congestion charging, should the mayor so wish, and deal primarily with the issue of hypothecation.
The provision of hypothecation as such is already covered in Schedules 18 and 19 and my ministerial colleagues and I have made many commitments throughout the passage of the Bill relating to our advocacy of such approaches in London and elsewhere. Schedules 18 and 19 define relevant transport purposes as,
"any purpose which directly or indirectly facilitates the implementation of any policies or proposals set out in the Mayor's transport strategy".
It is clear that a wide range of schemes across the geographical area of the GLA would be paid for by the hypothecation of this money. Therefore, the provisions of the Bill already guarantee that the revenues from the new charges will be ring-fenced for the purposes of implementing the mayor's transport strategy.
That leaves us with the question, for how long? The noble Earl dismissed it, but the agreement reached between government departments on the hypothecation of this form of revenue for transport infrastructure is a major breakthrough. It has been widely welcomed and it gives us a new way of providing decent transport for the capital. It is an important issue and it is not in the nature of the Treasury to concede such matters for all time. Indeed, it has a good reason for taking that stance and I agree with it. It is that if the revenues are sufficiently high and of a sufficiently long duration, there will come a time when there are no value-for-money transport infrastructure projects in London.
Noble Lords may believe that that is a long way off. I agree that it is probably a long way off, but there comes a point when it is appropriate. Therefore, we

1329
have built into the measure the provision that any scheme starting within the next 10 years can run for 10 years, but there will then be a review of the process. It seemed sensible to build in that review.
In her amendment the noble Baroness has been a little more modest than she was during earlier stages when she suggested 35 years before there was a review of the proceedings. She is now suggesting 15 years. It is to be hoped that by Third Reading we can reach some accommodation on the 10 years we propose, plus a review at the end of that period. That does not mean that the hypothecation will automatically stop. Indeed, if the scheme is working to the benefit of Londoners and there is palpable improvement in the transport system in London as a result of such funding, there is no doubt in my mind that the political imperative of continuing the scheme in some form will exist.
Nevertheless, it is sensible and prudent to review the situation after a period of 10 years. That is what we are building into the Bill. We do not want a five-year delay by having a review after 15 years. We believe that it is sensible to have it after 10 years; a view we have taken throughout the debate from which I shall not depart at this stage of the Bill.
There is not a great deal between the noble Baroness and ourselves on the desirability of providing this power for the mayor in relation to congestion charging and a workplace parking levy. However, understandably, the noble Baroness wishes to push the matter further in the future. I wish to do so, too, but it is prudent to build into the Bill a review after 10 years. I hope that on reflection the noble Baroness will agree that that is sensible financial management by national government and by the mayor and that she will not pursue the amendment tonight.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister was right to suggest that we on these Benches have sympathy with the ideas of congestion charging, workplace parking levies and hypothecation. On that we are completely at one. However, the difference between us lies in the area he next referred to; namely, the moment when such funding will no longer be necessary. Two difficulties arise. The first is that there may be problems with a 10-year period because it allows only two and a half of the four-year local authority cycles after the coming into existence of the GLA in which to commence any such schemes. The second is that if a sufficient number of schemes is undertaken to contribute to the financing of the undoubtedly enormous public transport needs—who knows, we may return to cycle lanes, which we are not allowed to talk about in the context of the Bill but which the mayor will be allowed to talk about in determining a transport strategy—there might be a wide range of transport needs to which the money can be put. Throughout, our contention has been that 10 years is not long enough to provide a stable, reliable source of funding for such projects.
1330
I shall read with great care the final part of the Minister's answer and compare it with what he said in Committee. I thought I understood 'what lie said in Committee and my understanding will be enriched by comparing the two. I shall make sure that I really do know what the Government's intention is. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 495:
Page 147, line 23, at end insert—
("(4) Any charging scheme established pursuant to this section shall cease to take effect, and may not be revived, if at any time there is not a scheme to improve transport arrangements (including schemes to assist the movement of pedestrians) within Greater London in the operation or establishment of which the net proceeds of the charging scheme (within the meaning given it in Schedule 18) can be applied, and are only applied.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word about Amendment No. 495. It might have been thought that Amendment No. 495 flowed from the previous group of amendments that we have been discussing, but in this particular grouping I shall be discussing Amendments Nos. 495 and 510, which are identical in wording. My noble friend Lord Attlee will discuss the other amendments in the group.
We should be very clear as to what we are talking about. Clauses 254 and 255 of the Bill create options for the mayor or his subsidiary body, Transport for London, or the London boroughs or the Common Council of the City of London to introduce schemes either for congestion parking or workplace parking.
This Bill is for and about London, and in that sense it is a geographically local Bill. It is not a national Bill to establish a national tax or a national scheme of levies. When we talk about hypothecation, which has been trumpeted as a great triumph, it is my view that we are being made to fall for what I regard as something that is intellectually dishonest. There is nothing to hypothecate. The Secretary of State has no revenue at all because any power to raise revenue is wholly and entirely in the hands of somebody else. In effect, what we are saying in this Bill is, "Mr Mayor, you may charge these levies on behalf of London on those who drive or park in London, whether or not they live in London, but after 10 years we reserve the right to take your decision away from you and to take the product of that decision and apply it elsewhere". I am sorry, but I do not regard that as a satisfactory way of going on. Schedules 18 and 19 give effect to that, and that is where the issue of hypothecation is discussed.
Amendments Nos. 495 and 510 deal with the matter in this way: they leave the power of decision to raise these revenues locally, of course, as the Bill requires. Then the Bill says that they should be applied locally for the improvement of transport arrangements, which include schemes to assist the movement of pedestrians within Greater London. Then at the point when there are no further such schemes that anybody can think of which could be of any possible benefit to London, those schemes will cease. It seems to me that that is perfectly reasonable and proper. If the decision is

1331
taken locally to implement these schemes, then, when there is no further use for them locally, they should cease. I think that is the way we should go about this business.
Of course in the background there is a separate issue, which is the question of whether there should be a national scheme of road-user charging—one could call it "congestion charging" or give it any other name. There could equally well be a national scheme for workplace parking charging. If both those schemes were to be introduced on a national basis, then the Secretary of State would rightly be able to claim credit, if he could persuade the Treasury to hypothecate the product of those schemes for transport purposes, because in fact there would then be some national money over which he had some control and with which he could do something. That may well be the situation we shall be looking at in a year or two. I have heard rumours floating around that indeed there may well be legislation at some point in the not too distant future, bringing just such schemes into being on a national basis.
I said when I began these remarks that we are dealing here with a geographically limited Bill: in essence, a Bill which is all about London and which is for Londoners. If schemes are produced under this Bill, they will be produced either by the mayor or his subsidiary, Transport for London, or the London boroughs or the Common Council of the City of London.
I regard that as perfectly reasonable. It is also perfectly reasonable that if those bodies choose to introduce those schemes, the schemes should be applied to London. I do not think it is reasonable that in fact, having taken the initiative, the risk and indeed possibly the political odium of introducing such schemes, they should then be subject to the intervention of a third party—that is to say, the Treasury—to take away from them what one might call their rewards for political boldness and initiative. It is for that purpose that Amendments Nos. 495 and 510 are on the Marshalled List. I commend them both to the House and beg to move Amendment No. 495.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, Amendment No. 497 deals with research. The Secretary of State claims that he wants an integrated transport policy. The mayor is under a duty to pursue such a transport policy and this amendment fulfils that purpose by ensuring that road pricing cannot be introduced in an ad hoc manner without proper research into the knock-on effect on other roads. That makes good environmental sense. The research is required to be published widely as a means of democratic accountability.
During the previous debate I explained my fears that congestion charging would simply suck in the more affluent motorist. What research has conclusively shown is that traffic flows can be reduced overall? Can the Minister show where it has worked before?
Amendment No. 508 follows on from Amendment No. 497. It is only common sense to ensure that traffic which would be displaced by private means by any
1332
charging scheme can be absorbed by the public transport system and thus prevent double counting in the research. The amendment covers both people and goods. Charging could impact on business adversely.
Amendment No. 510 tackles hypothecation as it applies to workplace parking rather than congestion charging, as in Amendment No. 495. Amendment No. 512 introduces the requirement for research into workplace parking. The transport White Paper states that new measures are needed to tackle excessive workplace parking provision on existing developments, so that local authorities can develop comprehensive parking management policies to support their transport and development plans. To make this effective without penalising the responsible car driver who cannot avoid using his car—we shall come later to amendments which cover that point—there needs to be a mixture of incentives and disincentives.
If everyone stopped using a car and used public transport, London Transport would collapse from overload. We heard about the lack of capacity on the railway system when debating an earlier amendment. Therefore, parking charging should discourage excessive use only and not every use. We understand this because we are the party of the responsible car driver and his employer. There is also the need for parking charges to be linked to a comprehensive parking management policy, as envisaged by the transport White Paper. This amendment provides for no parking charges where research is inconclusive and seeks to ensure that the results of any research are made publicly available, including on the Internet.
The amendment fulfils those purposes by ensuring that parking charges cannot be introduced in an ad hoc manner without proper research into the knock-on effect on roads in the area. The research is required to be published widely and, it is hoped, on the Internet. Amendment No. 523 covers a similar issue. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has at least a consistent approach to these matters. His view is that local authorities should use their own money and that there should not be too much, if any, interference from the centre in relation to money raised locally.
I respect that position. It is one which has been taken by governments of either complexion for many decades, although it is not one which this Government take. We believe that all methods of raising local government money, including those within the Greater London area, have to be subject to some local government finance regime, charges included. Therefore, the issue of hypothecation or otherwise does arise.
The noble Lord is not consistent in the wording of his amendments, as distinct from what he said—which is the principal position—in that he wants us to lay down the time at which the scheme should automatically end without local decision, without

1333
local accountability and without local democracy. Amendments Nos. 495 and 510, to which the noble Lords opposite spoke, would require a charging scheme to be terminated if the net proceeds from the scheme were not being used to fund transport improvements.
We have said that they should be hypothecated. Under the noble Lord's freedom situation, why should the mayor of London not be able to spend that money on whatever he likes? That is inconsistent with the noble Lord's general approach. It is better that we are clear from the beginning that hypothecation is laid down in the schedule and that it will be reviewed in 10 years' time. If it is then, indeed, the case that there are no longer any value for money transport projects in London on which it is worth spending money—which I believe we all agree is a fairly unlikely scenario—we should then look at the system. There will be other aspects of the system besides the appropriate and necessary hypothecated spending, which determine whether the system is fair, socially just, and so forth.
Therefore, a review is built into the provision. However, in the terms of the noble Lord's amendment, there would be an automatic cut-off in certain circumstances. I believe that the review process is far more sensible. There is nothing in our proposition—here I am reverting in part to the earlier amendment—to suggest that after those 10 years the Secretary of State would from there on pocket the money. We should review the situation and allow the mayor to keep the revenue and to continue to spend it on transport. Alternatively, should an unlikely scenario arise, we might even decide that he could use it for London Transport projects. However, that judgment needs to be made at that point. At this stage we are concerned with setting up schemes with clearly hypothecated revenue, and that revenue being recycled into transport infrastructure and improvements.
I turn now to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I am never quite clear where the Front Bench transport team stands on these matters, particularly in relation to the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, who obviously, I am sure we all appreciate, has better things to do with his time than to be present for this debate.
The amendments place substantial constraints on the operation and continuation of these schemes. One is tempted to believe that they are actually intended to make it extremely difficult for the mayor—or the boroughs, for that matter—to set up and run such schemes. Obviously, we all recognise that there is a need for research at various stages to determine how they are working and what the alternative might be. However, to lay down those provisions in such a prescriptive way seems to me to be the thin end of the wedge and to make that far more difficult.
There will be both operational and political problems for the mayor or the boroughs in deciding to go for these options. If, on top of those political and technical difficulties, we include these prescriptive constraints, it begins to add up to a position which, without quite saying so, would prevent the mayor and
1334
the boroughs from adopting this route towards the improvement of London's internal transport. The noble Lord may deny that that is his motive, but that would be the effect. As it chimes so much with what the noble Lord, Lord Archer, has said in a wider context and slightly premature stage of a certain contest, I therefore have deep suspicions of the amendments and hope that we should not pursue them here today. I hope also that, if the noble Earl's views are somewhat different, he will consider rather different amendments, or, more properly, support the position which we have already taken in the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me and understand if I divert to what is an apparently unrelated subject. The Minister will recall that, a year or 18 months ago, I asked him a question about the position of the Dartford River Crossing and at what date the tolls on that crossing were expected to cease.
The Dartford River Crossing—to refresh the memory of the House, which may not be necessary—was provided at the initiative of Essex and Kent County Councils. Because its provision was a local decision, it was decided that the tolls charged and the revenue from them would be applied to cover the cost of construction until all the construction and running costs had been paid and a sufficient pool of capital was established for the future maintenance of the crossing.
It was the joint view of Essex and Kent County Councils that the charges should cease at that point. My position is consistent. Indeed, when the crossing was in effect nationalised and privatised all in one swift motion by the previous government, that principle was accepted and followed in the Bill which went through both Houses of Parliament. It established the private system for that crossing, so that after the firms running the crossing had paid for it and received a reasonable profit for their investment and risk, and built up an adequate maintenance fund and paid all the costs, the tolls were due to cease.
That is a perfectly proper decision to be taken locally. I draw from that experience and apply it to this provision relating to London. The Minister is also indeed consistent, because in his reply he hinted at the possibility that, before the tolls ran out on the Dartford crossing, a national scheme might come into being which might mean that the tolls would continue. I suppose that in the great scheme of things one must accept that governments have that power. I further suppose that, as I now stand here, in a sense, as a representative dealing with government matters as opposed to local matters, one must accept that that is the way in which such matters must be considered. That is, of course, also proper.
However, we are here asking the putative mayor of London or the London borough councils to establish a scheme which may subsequently be abolished without further legislation. Under the provisions of the Bill, if the hypothecation runs out, that will be it. I said in my introduction to these amendments that we must face the possibility that there may be national schemes. If there are, that is a separate issue. But I do not believe

1335
it is right that we should place the burden of initiating what could, in effect, become schemes to produce national revenue, on the mayor and the boroughs. I do not believe that that is reasonable.
I believe that there may well be a fundamental difference between myself and the Minister. I listened with interest to what he had to say and I shall certainly consider very carefully the wording of Amendments Nos. 495 and 510. However, I assure the noble Lord that I believe that we shall need to bring back these amendments at Third Reading. My noble friend Lord Attlee will, of course, also consider what the Minister has said in regard to the amendments in this group to which he spoke. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 496 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 497 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 497A not moved.]
Schedule 18 [Road user charging]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 497B:
Page 275, line 12, leave out from ("road"") to end of line 13 and insert ("includes a reference to a GLA side road:").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 497C:
Page 278, line 11, at beginning insert
("(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with—

(a) exemptions from charge,

(b) the application of reduced rates of charge, or

(c) the imposition of limits on the charges payable,

in the case of any prescribed class of motor vehicles or any prescribed description of disabled or other persons.
(2) Subject to any regulations under sub-paragraph (1) above,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 497C, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 498, 512A, and 513A, which stand in my name. The government amendments fulfil the commitment that I gave to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester when I met him and other representatives of disabled groups and people interested within this House on 6th October to discuss disability issues arising from the Bill. I also referred briefly to our intention to move these amendments when we debated similar amendments moved last Tuesday by my noble friend Lord Morris.
These amendments will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to grant concessions and exemptions from road user and workplace parking charges in London. That includes any exemption from charges for disabled persons. Therefore, this regulation-making power will ensure that national exemptions will apply both inside and outside London.
We are in the process of finalising the structure of national concessionary arrangements. We hope shortly to be able to provide a summary of the responses that have been received to our consultation
1336
paper Breaking the Logjam. The question of exemptions will be dealt with in that context. We shall ensure that the regulations that the Secretary of State can prescribe will be in place before any charging scheme is introduced in London.
The regulations we shall bring forward will be subject to the negative resolution procedure of both Houses. I should add that the mayor will still be able to specify exemptions or concessions in London where those have not been specified by the Secretary of State as applying nationally.
I believe that those points meet the concern expressed in this House about the ability of the mayor to introduce charging schemes without reference to national exemptions because the Bill will have passed before any subsequent legislation. I believe that that is tidied up by this amendment. Clearly, there will be national exemptions and those will apply within London. I hope that those who have been understandably concerned about this matter will be reassured by the amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has moved his amendments, not least because I am not entirely confident about the drafting of my amendments. Therefore, we are happy with progress on this issue. Obviously, I shall not be moving my amendments.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for Amendment No. 497C. I shall refer to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester, as "my noble friend" because that is how he described me on Tuesday. I am delighted to repay the compliment.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, explained to the Minister why he would be unable to be here today to thank the Minister. I too thank the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, feels that the amendment meets his point totally. Amendment No. 511 will therefore not be moved.
I echo the noble Lord's thanks for the meeting we had with the Minister two weeks ago. It was an extremely friendly, helpful and productive meeting. I am very grateful to the Minister for having listened so carefully and having given such a good response.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 498 to 508 not moved.]
Clause 255 [ Workplace parking levy]:
[Amendments Nos. 509 to 511 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 512 not moved.]
Schedule 19 [Workplace parking levy]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 512A:
Page 291, line 26, at beginning insert ("The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with exempting—

(a) a prescribed number of parking places provided at any premises from being workplace parking places, or

(b) any prescribed class of motor vehicles from being controlled vehicles,

1337
whether generally or in the case of any prescribed description of premises or any prescribed description or disabled or other persons.
(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with—

(a) exemptions from licensing,

(b) the application of reduced rates of charges for licences, or

(c) the imposition of limits on the charges payable for a licence,

in the case of any prescribed description of premises or any prescribed description of disabled or other persons or, in the case of paragraph (b) or (c) above, any prescribed class of motor vehicles.
(1B) Subject to any regulations under sub-paragraph (1) or (1A) above,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 513 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 513A:
Page 291, line 31, at beginning insert ("Subject to any regulations under sub-paragraph (1) or (1A) above,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 514 to 523 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Clause 257 [Functions during the transitional period]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 523A:
Page 148, line 18, at end insert—
("(bb) facilitating the transfer of functions, property, rights or liabilities to Transport for London from any other body or person from whom they are or may be so transferred under or by virtue of this Act; or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Chapter XVI of Part IV provides for the transition from London Transport to Transport for London. In particular it is designed to deal with the period prior to the transfer to TEL of London Underground during which both bodies will be in existence with London Transport continuing to be responsible for the operation of the Underground.
London Transport, as the most substantial predecessor body, clearly has a major role to play in the setting up of TfL. Clause 257(2) already imposes a duty on London Transport to do anything it considers appropriate for a transitional purpose; that is, securing that public transport services are not disrupted, securing the PPP agreement, and transferring the property, rights and liabilities of LT to TfL.
This amendment widens the transitional provisions in the Bill to ensure that London Transport has sufficient powers to do anything necessary to facilitate the setting up of TfL. That would include facilitating the transfer of functions, property, rights and liabilities from any other predecessor body to TfL. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 524 not moved.]
Clause 259 [Continuity: repealed or revoked functions]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 525:
Page 150, line 8, after ("by") insert ("or in relation to").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 526 and 527, and 567 to 570. This group of amendments clarifies the continuity provisions in Clauses 259 and 356. Amendments Nos. 525, 526 and 527 aim to ensure that anything made, done by or in relation to London Regional Transport shall have effect as if made, done by or in relation to Transport for London. Amendments Nos. 567, 568, 569 and 570 make similar provision in relation to bodies abolished or dissolved and functions transferred, revoked or repealed by this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 526 and 527:
Page 150, line 11, after ("by") insert ("or in relation to").
Page 150, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Any reference in this section to anything made or done by or in relation to London Regional Transport includes a reference to anything which by virtue of any enactment is treated as having been made or done by or in relation to London Regional Transport.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 260 [Transfer of former.functions of London Transport Executive]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 528:
Page 150, line 19, at end insert—
("(2) In section 144 of the Transport Act 968 (transfer and disposal of historical records and relics) for "London Regional Transport" in each place where it occurs there shall be substituted "Transport for London".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 263 [Appointment of members by the Mayor]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 528A:
Page 150, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert—
("(8) Removal under Schedule 2 shall be subject to approval by two-thirds vote of the London Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this group I have tabled Amendments Nos. 528A, 529A to 529D and 534A. All relate to improvements that we would like to see to Clause 263 which sets up the London Development Agency within the context of the Regional Development Agencies Act.
Amendment No. 528A seeks to give the assembly a somewhat different power from that for which we applied previously. It seeks to give the assembly power to constrain the mayor's somewhat arbitrary powers of dismissal of members of the London assembly under Schedule 2. If there is to be such arbitrary power, we believe that the assembly should have some control over it. I do not expect the Minister to agree. I am not optimistic that he will see the light suddenly. However, we thought that it was worth attempting to do this once again.
Amendment No. 529A (line 3, page 151) deliberately sets out to create a situation in which the membership of the London Development Agency will always include one member of the London assembly, one member of the Common Council of the City of London, and one member who is a member of a London borough council. At present the legislation requires that people be appointed from those categories. However, such people can cease to be members of those bodies but still continue to serve on the London Development Agency. That would mean the possibility that no member of each of those three important sectors of London's commercial and political life would be involved directly with the agency. We do not believe that that is right. Amendment No. 529A takes care of that issue.
Amendment No. 529B involves a small point. It simply requires that at least two-thirds of the members of the London Development Agency—rather than half of them—should be people who have experience in the business and commercial world. Again, we believe that would be appropriate.
Amendment No. 529C removes from the face of the Bill the little phrase, persons
"who appear to the Mayor to be persons".
We do not believe that the London Development Agency should necessarily consist of people who "appear" to the mayor to be persons of experience in business and commerce; we believe they "should" be people with that experience. Amendment No. 529D covers a similar point.
Amendment No. 534A deals with a provision in Schedule 20. If the amendment were accepted, it would make it a condition that the person whom the mayor appoints holds elected office. At the moment the mayor can appoint someone who holds elected office, but such a person can cease to hold that office as a result of which a situation could arise in which the London Development Agency consisted of former elected officers as opposed to people actually in office. We do not believe that that is right.
We believe that these small amendments will improve and strengthen the London Development Agency. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, rarely have I seen what I was going to call "daft" amendments, but perhaps that would be unparliamentary language. In this respect, I do not refer to Amendment No. 529. I refer to those about which the noble Lord has just spoken.
The amendments are revealing because they indicate that the Conservative Party now recognises that it has absolutely no hope of gaining the mayoralty or a majority in the election. I greatly respect the noble Lord, notwithstanding what I have said. He is an old friend of long duration, or at least has been until now! I cannot imagine that he would have contemplated these amendments in any circumstances other than those which I have described. They are designed to "hobble" and to hamper, but not to improve the situation.
1340
I have no doubt that my noble friend will not entertain these particular amendments. They grasp at straws. With respect, they are not for the real political world at all. I do not believe that my noble friend will need much urging from me to reject the amendments, but they ought to be rejected.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, although Amendment No. 529 is in this group of amendments, I am glad to have been excepted from the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. We shall not speak to Amendments Nos. 530 and 531 in the group.
Amendment No. 529 addresses the membership of the London Development Agency and in particular its members who come from the assembly, from the London borough councils and from the Common Council of the City of London. The Bill provides that there will be at least four members—it may be more—of the London Development Agency who are at the time of their appointment elected members of any of those bodies. As we proposed at the previous stage, we now propose that there should be at least two members from the assembly and at least two members from the London boroughs or the Common Council.
We are glad to see the acknowledgement on the part of the Government of the interest of the London boroughs in regeneration and the need to ensure that the boroughs are firmly part of the partnership arrangements which will deal with the matters for which the LDA has responsibility.
At the previous stage of the Bill, the Minister said that the Government want,
"people who can contribute to the aims of the board, in particular its economic ones, and who can act together with the various private and public institutions within the region.—[Official Report, 7/7/99: col. 884.]
We feel that those representatives will be among them. When I suggested that the Minister had not addressed my point, he said that my amendment at that stage, which was the same as this one,
"fixed the requirement too rigidly in relation to local authority representation".
The Minister also accused me of going over old ground. I did not think then and do not think now that that is the case. However, since we went over so much ground so many times I can well understand that we all begin to have a sense of déjà vu about certain matters.
The point was not answered then. I am concerned that the mayor may be tempted either to appoint all of the four members from London borough councils, perhaps because he is going through a rough period with members of the assembly, or only appoint chums who are members of the assembly and who might come from any party because he feels that that is a nice cosy arrangement and it would be uncomfortable to have members of the London borough councils on the LDA board.
The Government have gone a long way to recognise the contribution that may be made by the different spheres of London's government. I hope that they feel that they can go that little bit further to ensure that

1341
that contribution will be made and will not be sidelined by the mayor, who might take a different view from the Government.
6 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I shall say a few words about Amendment No. 529C. I shall not comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, when he described a group of amendments as "daft". I am sure my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will do that adequately. The noble Lord said that he wished to remain a friend of my noble friend. I am sure he will. And, despite his remarks, he will certainly remain a friend of mine outside this Chamber.
It is important that the chairman of the London Development Agency should be a person who has experience of running a business. The reason we do not like the words,
"persons who appear to the Mayor to be persons",
is simply that the mayor himself does not have to be a person who has experience of business. That is not accepting, as the noble Lord suggested, that we have given up on our candidate; far from it. People who write books may not necessarily be considered business people in this sense.
It is important that Amendment No. 529C should be accepted by the Government. It is essential that the mayor, in designating who is to be the chairman of the London Development Agency, should choose someone who "is" experienced in business, not somebody who "appears to him" to be experienced in business.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was slightly astounded by the last remarks of the noble Baroness. Many writers may not be business people, but the noble Lord, Lord Archer, in view of the income he receives from his writing, cannot be regarded as anything but a successful business person.
The model of government that we are proposing means that the mayor takes an executive decision-making role and the assembly provides scrutiny of the mayor's actions. Amendment No. 528A would undermine that. It would allow the assembly to remove members of the London. Development Agency.
There is no equivalent in the RDA. Act as regards regional development agencies elsewhere. I remind your Lordships that under Schedule 2 of that Act, RDA board members can be removed from office only on the grounds of bankruptcy, prolonged absence or other unfitness for office. That is the appropriate position rather than it being a political decision to remove from office a member of the London Development Agency.
In their different ways Amendments Nos. 529, 529A and 534A would specify more closely the composition of the local authority representation on the LDA board. Again, they will reduce the mayor's discretion to appoint LDA board members in a way which is representative of diverse London interest groups. It is
1342
fundamental to our whole approach to regional development agencies that their boards bring experience of various different kinds to regional life. That applies equally to London. Members are not tied to specific regional interest groups and regional bodies. If we were to prescribe the balance of the local authority membership, that would undermine that overall approach. They are there for their own qualities, experience and expertise. I hope, therefore, that those amendments will not be pursued.
Amendment No. 529B would change the requirement that half the board members have to have business experience by a requirement that it be two-thirds. It has been clear throughout that it is our intention that the board of the LDA should be business led. However, we also recognise the need to require representation on that board of other interest groups and economic interests as well as local government. Were we to prescribe that the business element should always be two-thirds, it would reduce the discretion of the mayor in making such appointments and, if it were to be prescribed rigidly by statute, it would limit the mayor's ability to ensure representation of groups from other important walks of life, skills and experience on a board of no more than 15 persons. I therefore cannot accept Amendment No. 529B.
I shall not use the same terminology as that used by my noble friend in relation to Amendments Nos. 529C and 529D. They replace the requirement that half the board members must be persons who "appear" to the mayor to have experience of running a business. The words, "appear to the mayor" leave some judgment and discretion with the mayor, which is the point of establishing the mayor in the first instance. Were we to prescribe on the face of the Bill direct experience of running a business, which is an allegedly objective criteria, it could lead to substantial litigation were it ever to be challenged. It is clear "appears to" in this and other contexts—for example, the same phrase is used in the Welsh Development Agency legislation—leaves an element of judgment (in those days to the Secretary of State and now to the Welsh Assembly) to the mayor, whereas if we were to prescribe flatly "experience of business" who would judge whether or not the mayor fulfilled that requirement? In other words, the final judgment is down to the mayor but the mayor has to be able to demonstrate that it is reasonable that the person appears to him to have business experience. If Amendments Nos. 529C and 529D are intended to take discretion out of the mayor's hands, I understand that, though I do not agree with it. The reality is that it would open up arguments as to what amounts to appropriate business experience.
I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to say that she would not refer to Amendments Nos. 530 and 531 in this group. I shall therefore refrain from commenting on those.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we have had an interesting discussion. In relation to my amendments I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am not sure whether he has been present each time we have

1343
discussed this, but not least of the reasons for tabling what might be called "foolish" questions is that it forces the Minister to think. I pay the Minister this compliment. He has strengthened his arguments in favour of his position considerably since we first raised the matter. That is the justification for the procedures of this House.
I shall study with interest the Minister's comments. He definitely strengthened his argument. I doubt that the two of us will ever be in complete agreement on these matters, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 529 to 529D not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 529E:
Page 151, line 16, at end insert—
("(12) Proposed members of the London Development Agency shall complete a declaration detailing their business interests, whether he has been made bankrupt, been a party to a voluntary arrangement, whether there are any judgements against him. whether he has been convicted of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty or an offence under legislation (whether or not of the United Kingdom) relating to companies (including insider dealing), building societies, banking or other financial services, or if he has been disqualified as a director or of any other material information, and this declaration should be publicly available for inspection one month before appointment."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 529E seeks to put into the Bill a subject which produced quite a bit of interest when we were dealing with this matter at the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, joined me, and the amendments not spoken to in the previous grouping touch on this matter. No one who works for a public limited company would be unfamiliar with the provisions in either of these amendments. They are both directed to achieve the same purpose but would do so in different ways. Amendment No. 529E seeks to insert a provision into Clause 263 and Amendment No. 534 would make an addition to Schedule 20.
As I said, any businessman who is working in a plc will, if he is a director of that company, have to make a declaration of probity. It is an entirely reasonable and accepted procedure which any businessman would not think about for one moment; indeed, he would expect to have to comply with it. Of course, some of the businessmen who will serve on the London Development Agency have already signed this declaration, but they will have signed it for someone else. I do not think that it is unreasonable that they might have to make the declaration for the mayor—in fact, not for the mayor, but for the people of London. The LDA is not there for the amusement of its members, still less is it there for the gratification of the ambitions of the mayor. It is there to serve the people of London.
It would gratify me enormously if the Minister could find it in his heart to accept one or the other of these amendments. I believe both of them to be sensible, but I do not expect both to succeed. The principle is absolutely correct. Although I admit that we have returned to a matter which we debated thoroughly in
1344
Committee, I think it is an important matter and that these two amendments deserve sympathetic consideration by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 530 and 531. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has no doubt noted, it is no coincidence that the amendment from these Benches is identical to Amendment No. 529E in many respects. Indeed, we were certainly not alone in Committee in finding the Government's reply unsatisfactory regarding the nature and the way in which interests were to be declared with regard to the LDA.
In her reply in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, seemed to imply that the provisions in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 were satisfactory. However, I suggest to her that paragraph 8 of the second schedule to that Act, which I believe is the part of the legislation that she referred to as requiring declarations of interest, is really unsatisfactory and is certainly in no way comparable to the provision suggested by these amendments. The paragraph in that schedule deals only with ad hoc disclosures and not with general disclosures, which are then fully published. We debated the Food Standards Bill in the Moses Room last week. There are proper provisions in that legislation for declarations of interest and their publication. That is the right thing to do for a public agency. In our view, the LDA should be treated no differently.
We have tabled Amendment No. 531 which can be treated as either additional or alternative to Amendment No. 530. Indeed, the matter might be best dealt with by incorporating, as it seeks to do, Clause 55 of the Bill into the Regional Development Agencies Act. That clause currently applies only to the mayor, the assembly members and the staff of the authority. The amendment is designed to incorporate Clause 55 into the Regional Development Agencies Act so that the provision would also apply to members of the LDA. It deals inter alia with disclosure and registration of interests, the exercise of functions when there are conflicts of interest and,
"the prescription of model codes of conduct".
All that could be properly applied to members of the LDA.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, pointed out, and as was quite clearly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, in Committee—who, after all, must have filled in a great many application forms to the Stock Exchange over a course of time—such declarations are the sort of thing that businessmen do every day as a matter of course. It really is time for the Government to accept that a much more comprehensive declaration of interest is required by members of the LDA under the terms of the Bill. They should be subject to a proper duty to make declarations. I very much hope that the Government will reconsider the matter.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the propositions in these particular amendments. I just wonder whether it is all a little too complicated, but no doubt my noble friend the Minister will enlighten us. There is one advantage that I see in a declaration; namely, that if someone signs a declaration which is false, it would open up the possibility of a prosecution for perjury. To that end, there would be an additional sanction available which, as I understand it, would not be available if the concept of a declaration is rejected. I may be wrong in that respect, so I shall certainly listen to my noble friend's response with care.
It seems to me to be important to inject into this argument the possibility of a criminal sanction which might follow in what is a matter of very important public duty. I simply put that idea forward for my noble friend to consider in her response to this debate.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 529E and 534B, together with Amendments Nos. 530 and 531 which were originally in the previous grouping, would require proposed members of the LDA board to complete a declaration covering certain issues which might render them unsuitable to serve on that board. Those issues would include bankruptcy, fraud, dishonesty, offences under the Companies Acts and similar legislation, and disqualification as a director. The declaration must be publicly available for one month before appointment.
The noble Lord has raised an important issue. I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the matter with him again. Perhaps I may begin by stressing that we fully accept the need to avoid conflicts of interest and the need for high ethical standards. However, conflicts of interest are prevented by Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act—this deals with one of the points raised by the noble Lord—which requires members to declare interests in matters being discussed and prevents such members from taking part in decisions in which they have an interest. Ethical standards are protected in part by the power of the mayor to remove members who become bankrupt and by the imposition of the local government framework of controls, including oversight by the Audit Commission and the appointment of a chief finance officer with statutory duties to ensure financial propriety. Therefore, we are convinced that there is no case for further controls in that area.
I can understand noble Lords seeking to argue that it is best to err on the side of caution, but we have another difficulty with the proposed amendments. We firmly believe that the approach suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan—with its emphasis on avoiding the rigidity introduced by trying to define standards in statute—is the right one. The amendment proposed would cut across that policy. We accept that the amendment essentially covers Stock Exchange practice for directors of plcs, but I am advised that that practice does not have a statutory basis, thus supporting the view that statute is not the best vehicle for such matters.
1346
Finally, I should point out that the mayor with his or her powers of appointment and extensive powers of direction over the LDA is able to apply such extra safeguards as she or he sees fit. Our policy is not to add unnecessary constraints on the mayor's freedom of action. He or she is, in the last analysis, answerable to the voters for stewardship of the authority and functional bodies. It is not clear that a false declaration would inevitably in all circumstances—I am sure noble Lords are aware that I am being cautious—lead to perjury; it would depend on the status of such action. I prefer to write to clarify the point in greater detail if that is necessary.
As regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, Amendment No. 530 requires proposed members to complete a declaration covering bankruptcy and certain related matters. However I believe that I have covered that point. I hope that noble Lords will feel that to achieve the aims which we share it is not necessary to proceed with the amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act. Clearly her view is that that is entirely satisfactory even though it is not as widely drawn as the amendments. What are the publicity requirements under paragraph 8 of Schedule 2?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not aware that there are publicity requirements in those circumstances but that does not in, my way detract from the strength of the constraint as regards ethical practice in making such appointments.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I did not quite follow the argument about false declarations. If someone is required, as here, to make a declaration and, let us say, a declaration is made that that person has not been bankrupt, or rather he or she does not declare that he has been bankrupt, in almost all the circumstances—although I can see one or two areas where that may not apply—why should not the Government say that it is desirable that the declaration should be made and if it is breached the criminal sanction is available certainly as regards some of the concepts that we are discussing? Would that not be a useful sanction?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is my understanding that the requirement to act within the ethical framework in the terms laid down in the legislation, and in the circumstances of requiring a declaration, for example on bankruptcy, is covered in exactly the way that my noble friend seeks. I was being cautious and offering to write to the noble Lord if he had further questions on that matter. I am assured that the answer I gave was correct.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, when one stands at the Dispatch Box on this side of the House one does not have great expectation of an occasional triumph

1347
when the Government agree to a measure. However, I draw some encouragement from the fact that debate on the procedures and detail of the Greater London Authority, the mayor and the subsidiary bodies will almost certainly in the initial stages of the working of that authority be material which they will find useful if not absolutely essential. I am glad that I initiated this debate. I shall study the comments of the noble Baroness with care and attention, as always. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 530 and 531 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, if Amendment No. 531A were to be agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendment No. 532 because of pre-emption. I now call Amendment No. 531A.
Clause 264 [Delegation of functions by Ministers to the Mayor]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 531A:
Page 151, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we think that the way in which the legislation is drafted gives too much power to the mayor with regard to the London Development Agency. In Section 6 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 the Secretary of State delegates power to the regional development agencies. However, the effect of Clause 264(2) of this Bill is that delegated powers are given to the mayor and not to what is in effect the regional development agency. Therefore the mayor is in effect the London Development Agency. We think that that is too strong a power. I do not suppose that the Minister will agree with us but we thought it was worth putting this down once again as a marker. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, by the same token I do not expect miracles from the Minister's reply. Amendment No. 532 seeks further clarification as to the extent of the delegation to the London Development Agency on the part of the Secretary of State. In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, made it clear that the Government intended to transfer the property, rights and liabilities of English Partnerships to the LDA. We certainly welcome that and we trust that the Minister will give that assurance today. That is the first of the four limbs of the delegations that we seek to examine.
The second delegation that we seek from the Secretary of State regards selective financial assistance under Section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. As regards those powers in relation to assisted areas, the noble Baroness said that the Government had decided that that should be reserved for Ministers for the present. However, she gave no reasons for that. Surely these are a vital component of any regeneration strategy to be adopted by the authority. It is not clear from the noble Baroness's reply whether, if the present is not the right time, when will be the right time. Why is now not the right time?
1348
As regards the third limb, EU structural funds, the noble Baroness was even less forthcoming. She said that because the LDA will be a recipient it would be inappropriate for it to allocate such funds. I wonder whether the Minister can go into further detail as to why that should be the case. After all, if it receives just a part of the cake it could easily be responsible for allocating the remainder of the cake. That matter could be clarified. Again it is an important part of any regeneration strategy.
Finally, as regards allocation of the single regeneration budget, because of some confusion over groupings in Committee the Minister's reply was not very clear when one examines Hansard, although she seemed to imply that SRB funding responsibility would be delegated to the LDA. If that is the case, obviously we welcome it. However, we seek clarification in all those areas and in any other areas of delegation that the Minister may care to comment upon.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am a little hurt. The noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith, and Lord Clement-Jones, seem to imply that we on these Benches have not listened to anything and have never responded positively to any point raised. That would be a tragic note to leave on record in the light of the reasonable approach we have taken.
Amendment No. 531A would ensure that Ministers could only delegate economic development functions under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 to the LDA, and not to the mayor, and that the mayor's consent would not be required for this. I should explain that Section 6 of the RDA Act provides for the delegation of certain functions by Ministers to RDAs, as noble Lords have said, and it lays down the conditions under which such delegations can be made, varied and revoked.
Clause 264 amends Section 6 so that a Minister may delegate any eligible function to the mayor or, with the mayor's consent, to the LDA. The present intention is to make such delegations on the same terms as delegations to RDAs outside London, which includes making the delegation subject to such conditions as the Minister sees fit. Any such delegated function can be further delegated by the mayor to the LDA under Clause 31 of the Bill. However, if it is delegated to the LDA in this way, the mayor is obliged to attach conditions to the delegation to ensure that the conditions attached by the Minister to the original delegation are fully satisfied. As we made clear in the White Paper, the LDA will be an executive arm of the mayor. If Ministers were able to delegate functions to the LDA against the wishes of the mayor, that would undermine the close working relationship which we intend for the mayor and the LDA.
Amendment No. 532 seeks to delegate to the LDA a miscellany of functions and funding regimes. The first of these is already provided for in Section 36 of the RDA Act. This allows the Secretary of State to direct the Urban Regeneration Agency to transfer to RDAs

1349
appropriate properties, rights and liabilities as a consequence of the RDA carrying out the functions of the URA in its regions. For example, the English Partnership assets in London—except for the Dome and possibly some property close to it—will transfer to the LDA. I can assure the noble Lord that we intend to make such a transfer to the LDA—together with the transfer of property, rights and liabilities—when the LDA is established.
As the noble Lord recognises, the second function would go beyond those delegated to other RDAs and, as has been acknowledged, this was fully debated during the passage of the RDA Bill before finally being rejected. Assisted areas define where government can give specified financial support to industries. We have decided that this should be reserved for Ministers as at present.
I have seen too many Ministers at the Dispatch Box get drawn into answering questions such as "How long is 'possibly soon'?"; "How long is 'sooner'?"; "How long is 'very quickly'?"; "How long is 'at some stage in the future'?"; and "If so, when?" to realise that that would not be a wise course to follow. However, I should make it absolutely clear that RDAs will have an important role in advising on applications for assistance.
Perhaps I may respond to a specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Assisted areas are a matter of national policy dealing with the relative competitiveness of different parts of the country and within the EU. It is clearly right that this should remain with the national government. If the noble Lord requires any further expansion on the subject, I shall of course write to him.
The third function would allow Ministers to delegate to the LDA the administration of the structural funds currently carried out by the Government Office for London. Like RDAs elsewhere, as the noble Lord recognised, the LDA is likely to be a recipient of structural funds. It could lead to conflict with other recipients were there to be a role for it in overall administration.
The fourth function would specify that the single regeneration budget in London should be delegated to the LDA. We have already committed ourselves to this, but the delegation will be made to the mayor unless he or she consents to a delegation directly to the LDA.
These are funding programmes that naturally evolve over time, and it would not be appropriate to identify functions for the purposes of the Bill by referring in detail to such programmes. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I hasten to reassure her that we do not regard the Government as wholly immovable. Often, it is very difficult see when a concession is a concession. Sometimes one has to study the wording to find whether it is a concession, or sometimes the concession comes along later. I readily
1350
acknowledge that during the passage of the Bill there has been quite a lot of movement. Undoubtedly, some of that movement has come partly as a result of the Government's studies of the flaws in, or omissions from, the original drafting, and some has come as a consequence of the pressure applied by ourselves and noble Lords sitting to my right. That is the purpose of our debates.
I heard with great interest what the noble Baroness said. I shall study her remarks. In the meantime I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 532 not moved.]
Clause 265 [The London Development Agency strategy]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 532A:
Page 152, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 12 and insert ("submit to the Mayor, the Assembly, the London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 532A to 532J constitute a large group of amendments which deal with matters that we have fairly thoroughly debated. Dare I say it, from the responses of the Minister today, I do not think we will get a great deal of movement on them now. Therefore I feel it is perhaps unnecessary to trouble your Lordships by taking the House painfully through them again.
[Amendment No. 532A not moved.]
[Amendment Nos. 532B to 532J not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I call Amendment No. 5340. The Question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. I think inadvertently he has taken two pages of the Marshalled List together. The next amendment is Amendment No. 533.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 533:
Page 153, line 1, at end insert—
("( ) In this Act and the Greater London Authority Act 1999, references to the London Development Agency strategy include, except where the context otherwise requires, a reference to the London Development Agency strategy as revised.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 533A:
After Clause 268, insert the following new clause—

ASSEMBLY TO DEBATE REPORT AND ACCOUNTS OF AGENCY
(" . The Assembly shall debate annually the report and accounts of the London Development Agency.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 533A deals with a simple and basic point. It may be that the Minister will tell me that it is otiose—to borrow someone else's word—or unnecessary.
This small amendment requires that the London assembly shall debate annually the report and accounts of the London Development Agency. It may be deemed inconceivable that that would not happen, but it does not have to happen. The London Development Agency could submit its report to the assembly quietly and it could be quietly buried. That is not what should happen. The amendment seeks to ensure that it does not happen. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, by virtue of Clause 116, the assembly will receive a copy of any reports prepared by the LDA's chief finance officer under Section 114 of the Local Government Act 1988. These are reports on losses, unlawful expenditure or items of account, and the likelihood that expenditure will exceed resources. Furthermore, under Clause 121, the LDA will have to provide the authority with such information about its accounts as the mayor shall request so that the authority can prepare its summary statement of account under Clause 120 for the GLA and the functional bodies as a whole. Therefore, the assembly will have ample opportunity to debate reports on financial matters and the LDA's accounts. We all anticipate a co-operative and peaceful relationship between the mayor, the assembly and the LDA. For the noble Lord to imply that it could come to the point where the scrutiny function is not carried out is not realistic.
The assembly has a power under Clause 49 to keep under review the exercise by the mayor of the statutory functions exercisable by him. Given the powers of appointment and direction which the mayor has over the LDA, the assembly will be able to hold regular debates. Requiring the assembly to debate the LDA's reports and accounts is unnecessary and would serve only to cloud its responsibilities. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I fail to understand why the fact that the assembly might debate the report and accounts of the LDA should cloud matters. I should have thought that, if anything, it would be more likely to cast light on the subject. None the less, I accept that in the way of the world it is unlikely that when the assembly receives the reports—in particular, when it looks at what the LDA is doing in relation to preparation of the draft consolidated budget—it will not go into the London Development Agency report and accounts in considerable detail.
It is on that basis that I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, rather than for the reason that it might cloud an issue. I do not believe that that would happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 20 [Further amendments of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 533B:
Page 300, line 18, leave out from ("to") to end of line 19 and insert ("London where the London Development Agency shall have regard to the views of and regularly consult small, medium and large businesses in London and their representative bodies."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns to a theme on which we have touched time and time again as regards the need for thorough consultation between the representative bodies of small, medium and large businesses in London and the LDA. There are some half a million businesses in London, give or take a few. There are so many small businesses that it is difficult to know the exact figure. Most of those businesses are small and medium sized. It is a fact that most such businesses do not generally have representative bodies which can adequately put forward their point of view. None the less, such businesses form a large and significant part of any urban economy and deserve to be taken most thoroughly into account.
I do not apologise for tabling the amendment yet again. I wish that the Government would see the force of it, although I do not doubt that they will say that the consultation will be Utopian and that there is no problem here. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment slightly late in the day. I find it a little superfluous to put into the Bill the need to consult small, medium-sized and large businesses. Noble Lords may be aware that Sub-Committee B of the Select Committee on the European Communities, of which I have the honour to be a member, is looking into the needs of SMEs and the help they receive from Brussels. We have been debating the matter for some time and it is hoped that we shall produce a paving report before the end of the Session. Therefore, I wonder whether it is necessary to include this level of detail.
There are, of course, a significant number of organisations that do look after small businesses as well as large ones. The sub-committee examined the point again this morning and I believe that it is true to say that their views are well represented. I certainly do not believe that it is necessary to go into the level of detail required by this amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, partly for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and partly for the reason that very early in the Bill, starting at Clause 25, and throughout it we have built in provisions for consultation between the mayor, the functional bodies and the business community—I believe that I gave a positive reassurance on the matter to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, earlier in the Report stage—I can say that we are absolutely committed to full consultation with the business community at all levels. There is an additional reason why this would not be an appropriate point to build in such a provision; namely, the amendment relates to paragraph 3 of Schedule 20 which amends the Regional Development Agencies Act in relation to regional chambers. Clearly, a body consisting solely of business interests is not the equivalent of regional chambers in the other regions of England. For that reason, it would not be appropriate to insert such a provision at that point of the Bill.

1353
I have expressed the view several times during the course of our deliberations on the Bill that we are committed clearly, absolutely and more than sufficiently to consultation with business.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but it gives me pleasure to hear him reiterate his points on consultation. It is good also to hear the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, when he assures us that the mechanisms already exist. I am an infinite sceptic, because however good things are, they can always be improved. It is because things can always be improved that I continue to press so often on the same subjects. That ensures that the improvement process is likely to happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smithhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 533C:
Page 302, line 9, leave out paragraph 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the boundaries of the London Development Agency. As drafted, the Bill fixes that boundary for all time unless subsequent primary legislation is passed, and it is a fact that that is not the general situation. I know that we have debated the matter before, but I reiterate the argument. However, on this occasion I shall spare the Minister the trouble of responding to me by not moving the amendment.
[Amendment No. 533C not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 534:
Page 302, line 23, at end insert—
("Power to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament
After section 26 there shall be inserted—
"Power to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament
26A.—(1) The London Development Agency—

(a) may promote Bills in Parliament; and

(b) may oppose any Bill in Parliament.

(2) Subsection (1)(a) applies only if the Mayor of London—

(a) gives his written consent to the Bill; and

(b) confirms that consent in writing as soon as practicable after the expiration of 14 days after the Bill has been deposited in Parliament.

(3) If the Mayor of London does not confirm the consent as required by subsection (2)(b), he shall give notice of that fact to the London Development Agency, which shall take all necessary steps for the withdrawal of the Bill.
(4) If the Mayor of London, in giving notice under subsection (3), states that he confirms his consent to the Bill if provisions specified in the notice are omitted or are amended as so specified, the London Development Agency may, instead of withdrawing the Bill pursuant to subsection (3), take all necessary steps for the omission or, as the case may be, the amendment of the provisions in question in accordance with the notice.
(5) Without prejudice to subsections (2) to (4), the functions conferred on the London Development Agency by subsection (1)(a) are exercisable subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Schedule 6A.
(6) Subsection (1)(b) applies only if the Mayor of London gives his written consent to the London Development Agency to oppose the Bill.
(7) If—

(a) the London Development Agency deposits a petition against a Bill in Parliament, but

(b) the consent required by subsection (6) has not been given before the end of the period of 30 days following the day on which the petition is deposited,

the London Development Agency shall take all necessary steps for the withdrawal of the petition.
(8) Before exercising the functions conferred by subsection (2)(a) or (b), (4) or (6), the Mayor of London shall consult the London Assembly.
(9) This section is without prejudice to any power to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament which a regional development agency other than the London Development Agency may have apart from this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 534A and 534B not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 534C:
Page 303, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
("(5) After paragraph 3 (remuneration, pensions etc) there shall be inserted—
Application of paragraph 3 in relation to the London Development Agency
3A.—(1) Payments by way of remuneration or allowances, other than allowances in respect of expenses incurred in the exercise of their functions, shall not be made under paragraph 3(1) to members of the London Development Agency who are also members of the London Assembly.
(2) The payments that may be made to or in respect of a person—

(a) under paragraph 3(2)(a) or (b), or

(b) under a scheme provided or maintained under paragraph 3(2)(c),

do not include payments referable to periods when the person is or was a member of both the London Development Agency and the London Assembly.
(3) In the application of paragraph 3 in relation to the London Development Agency, the references to the Secretary of State shall be taken as references to the Mayor of London.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, as consideration on the Greater London Authority Bill has now been concluded a little earlier than we expected, I think the general feeling of the House is that we should go

1355
straight on with the Unstarred Question. As the Question is being taken at the end of business, it is no longer restricted to the one hour that would have been allowed in the dinner break. A one-and-a-half hour limit now applies. That does not affect the time allowed for the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, or my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, but it increases the time available for all other speakers from four minutes to seven minutes. However, if noble Lords have prepared four minute speeches and would prefer to avoid the inconvenience of extending them at such short notice, I am sure there will be no objection.

Aberdeen and North-East Scotland
6.50 p.m.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the contribution of the city of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland to the economy of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I sought this brief debate and tabled the Unstarred Question on the Order Paper because I believe that Aberdeen and north-east Scotland are making a hugely important contribution to the economy of the United Kingdom. The city of Aberdeen is without doubt a major contributor to our present prosperity. I wish to be assured that the Government are aware of that contribution to our national wealth and that they are actively pursuing policies that will underpin the position of Aberdeen and guarantee, so far as any government can give such a guarantee, that it will continue as a generator of wealth.
Aberdeen has historically been a place where business has flourished. It has always been a successful port and in times past its traditional industries prospered. They, and most notably the fishing industry, continue to have an important place in the local economy. Today, with a population of over 200,000, Aberdeen has the highest gross domestic product in the United Kingdom.
The oil industry and Aberdeen's position as the European oil capital testify to the success of the city. Securing the oil industry for Aberdeen can in large measure be attributed to a Member of the House. I refer to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. It was he who, as Lord Provost of the city and later as a Scottish Office Minister, helped to create a business environment which the oil industry found attractive over competitor locations. He deserves credit and recognition for that. I am delighted to see him in his place this evening.
At its peak in 1991 the oil industry employed some 54,000 people. Today that figure is reduced to around 40,000 and predictions recently made by Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire councils project a further reduction of around 10,000 between now and 2011. The councils' report says that the future depends on field development, the servicing and support of
1356
international oil provinces and the framework set by the Government. The energy industry is robust, and I am confident that it will prove so in the future, but I hope we will hear tonight from the Government how they view the future of the oil industry in Scotland.
Aberdeen and north-east Scotland is the foremost region in Northern Europe and has a leading position in business, commerce, science and technology. Its universities and related institutions sit well with the excellence achieved by the business community. Its public authorities match that excellence and the high quality of its local government is widely appreciated.
I should like at this point to make some observations about the economic infrastructure. Aberdeen is well served by the aviation industry. Although there have been recent concerns about the provision of air services it does appear that these will continue at a level that meets the needs of the business community. Links with London, continental Europe and the British mainland are frequent and reliable. Aberdeen airport itself is a first-class facility. BAA Scotland runs a very efficient organisation at Dyce in support of air movements associated with the oil industry as well as the passenger airlines. I believe that it is in the interests of Aberdeen and the economy as a whole that a more liberal regulatory regime on later landing times is developed to allow even greater use and access to the airport. It is a price worth paying and one which an important industrial centre like Aberdeen should be prepared to pay.
There is not time to deal with everything, despite the Chief Whip's generosity, but I would make a plea for an improved rail service between Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Express trains covering the same routes as commuter trains stop at every station, or so it seems, and that is not necessary. It certainly seems like that if you attempt to go up on the night sleeper. Schedules are simply too slow and it is time to do something about it. There is also a clear need for a cross-city link.
Perhaps the most important plea I can make tonight is for the early construction of the road known as the western peripheral route. Recently when clearing papers belonging to my late father I found proposals for this route being considered by Aberdeen Town Council, of which he was a member, in 1945. If there was case then, there is surely a case now. It is time to build it. The present trunk road network is totally inadequate. Dual carriageways and motorways link from south of the city to the south of Europe. Yet the network comes to a dead-end at the city boundary. The entrance to Aberdeen from the south is by way of the 16th century ancient monument of Bridge of Dee. Its seven foot width restriction makes mockery of the trunk road objective of providing a continuous, quality network. Before rejoining dual carriageways to the north and west of Aberdeen the trunk roads through the city use residential streets and are fragmented by some 16 sets of traffic signals and pedestrian crossings.
The European Union has designated the Trans-European Road Network connecting Aberdeen from the south to the west. Yet the UK and Scottish

1357
Governments have failed to recognise the importance of the western peripheral route as contributing to this continent-wide network. Aberdeen is too important to the Scottish and UK economies for this route to be delayed any longer. A commitment to its construction must be made now.
Even in the midst of prosperity there are small pockets of poverty. In recent times bids for funding and support such as is required for the upgrading of the Tillydrone area have been rejected. This has led to a perception in the city that central Scotland decision-makers misunderstand the needs of Aberdeen City Council. It leads to the claim that Aberdeen generates wealth that is spent elsewhere in the UK while the needs of Aberdeen are not met. These perceptions are divisive and they must not gain currency. But that means that the Government in Edinburgh must match its promise of inclusiveness and see to it that Aberdeen City Council receives the financial assistance it requires to tackle poverty and social exclusion.
I have sought in this debate to identify some of the important priorities of a city that has great economic and social importance to the United Kingdom. I hope that I have not overstated the case for Aberdeen, unlike an old Aberdeen councillor when I was a young man. Addressing the council on tourism, he made this observation:
"Aberdeen is famous throughout the world— and beyond".
He exaggerated just a little! I shall be satisfied if the Government have heard our case and I look forward to hearing the contributions of noble Lords and my noble friend's response at the conclusion of the debate.
6.58 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, although I was brought up in Aberdeenshire and used to know Aberdeen very well, I should like to take your Lordships on a trip up to the true north-east of Scotland; that is, to Caithness. The noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, to whom we a re all grateful for introducing the debate, mentioned communications, so let us start in London.
The drive from London to Edinburgh takes about eight hours. The journey by train takes about four hours. The next stage of the journey is from Edinburgh to Inverness. That is probably about the same by train or by car: four hours. The next leg of the journey up to north-east Scotland takes about four hours by train and about two hours by car. There is a huge contrast. It highlights the disadvantage that Caithness suffers through lack of a decent train service.
What does that mean? It means that people do not use the railway, and therefore there is less investment. It also means that freight companies do not use the railway. Although we might be only two hours from Inverness and your Lordships might think that we have certain advantages, if one looks at petrol prices, one soon realises that Caithness is not contributing in the way that it could to the economy of the United Kingdom because the price of petrol is some 15 to
1358
20 per cent higher than it is in London. The situation is exacerbated entirely by the Government's policies on fuel pricing.
Caithness is very much a farming county. However, the Government's policy is not to help farmers at all. As a result, farming is suffering enormously, as we found out at Question Time today, when reference was made to the diabolical policy on beef on the bone which is frustrating farmers. Another point that needs to be borne in mind—which is true of a large part of the farming in Aberdeenshire—is the total lack of flexibility in the North in terms of crops. It is not like the balmy South, where one can grow various crops. Farmers are very restricted in what they can grow.
Another issue that is causing great concern in the North-East as a whole is the Scottish Parliament's proposals for land reform. Investment is drying up in all kinds of areas and that is beginning to take its toll. The environment in the North-East is beautiful. The Flow Country is almost a world heritage site, and I hope that it becomes one. But it does not generate income. It does not make a great contribution to the economy. Further help is badly needed, as are fewer policies that will be detrimental in the future.
The government policies that I supported when we were in power have also led to problems. I argued against them at the time. The centralisation of the Highland council at Inverness is draining good people away from the North-East to Inverness. It is an inevitable consequence of centralisation. It would be far better if the present Government sought to undo the folly of their predecessors in centralising in Inverness. To put the Highland council back into Wick and the local areas would provide people with new opportunities and would stop the drift of unemployment.
Unemployment is a long-term problem in Caithness. The figure for the long-term unemployed is the second worst in the Highland area. The problem is exacerbated by government policies. There are very good areas, such as Dounreay, where the figures have risen again to what they were before the threat of closure. Areas in Thurso are thriving. But with the road link, despite the high petrol prices, and with the Highland council based at Inverness, it is inevitable that people go to Inverness to shop rather than shop in the high street. That reduces the contribution that Caithness can make to the economy. The county has great potential. It merely needs better government policies. At present, the Government are aiding the millennium clearances, and that is bad for the whole of the North-East.
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, on initiating this debate. I shall take the short speech option.
King Robert the Bruce gave my family land and a castle in north-east Scotland in 1308. Apart from military service, particularly at Bannockburn in 1314—a home win, where we commanded the cavalry—and the 9th Earl being in Australia for five years from 1895, we have been there ever since.

1359
The North-East has many good things. It has good farming. Thirty per cent of the food production in Scotland, worth £117 million in 1997, takes place in the area. It now has the Scottish wing of the Food Standards Agency. Seventy per cent of the UK fish catch is landed in the North-East. Aberdeen has a modern and efficient harbour, the second busiest after Dover in terms of ship movements. We can also grow good timber, and we have our own breed of cattle black Aberdeen Angus, which, rather like Scottish hereditary Peers, are carefully bred from long and well-proven blood lines. Once the current problems are resolved, they (the pedigree cattle, that is) will continue to be exported all over the world.
We have good scenery, but rather lose out to the A9, the road that runs from Perth to Inverness. I understand that, in the tourist trade, the A9 is called the Aberdeen bypass. As the noble Lord said, Aberdeen certainly needs a bypass, but rather closer than the A9. Difficult decisions over the western peripheral route will have to be taken soon before economic activity grinds to a halt.
We have almost full employment which in itself causes problems, particularly for firms wishing to expand. We are possibly the victims of our own success. Although a considerable amount of money has been generated in, and has left, the area, the infrastructure has been rather left behind. There is now a serious shortage of industrial land. A 1997 review stated that in the area in close proximity to Aberdeen there was only 4.3 years' supply left.
The two most important contributors to the UK economy in the North-East are Scotch whisky and North Sea oil. In 1998, the Scotch whisky industry employed about 1,350 people in the area, many in remote rural and economically disadvantaged communities. One in 10 agricultural jobs in Scotland relies on the success of the industry, which draws heavily on Scottish farmers for about 80 per cent of its malting barley needs, much of the barley grown in the North-East. The distilleries are a great magnet for tourists, who will leave the A9 to be among the million visitors to 40 distilleries, some in north-east Scotland. The industry generates £2 billion of exports each year and pays considerable duties to the UK Exchequer.
As regards North Sea oil and gas, the right honourable Stephen Byers, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, writing the foreword to a task force report in September this year, stated:
"There can be no doubt about the significant part which the oil and gas sector plays in the UK economy. Over the years it has provided £89 billion pounds in revenue to the nation, significant employment, with some 30,000 jobs offshore and over 300,000 direct and indirect jobs onshore: and in 1998 it was responsible for some 17% of UK industrial investment".
Need I say more?
7.9 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I ought to start by declaring an interest as a professor and Vice-Principal of the University of Aberdeen. That will give some background as to why I shall mention that institution,
1360
at least to some extent, in my comments. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld on giving the House the opportunity to debate this Unstarred Question. It is phrased somewhat like an examination question. I only hope it does not produce the answer of one undergraduate when asked to give an assessment of the contribution of D.H. Lawrence to English literature. The candidate wrote on the examination paper: "Nae much". That cannot be said about the contribution of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland to the economy of the United Kingdom.
It is important, in debates such as this, that we voice local interests, but we must also beware of being parochial. I do not believe there is a risk of that happening in this debate because the themes and issues on which we touch have a resonance that goes beyond north-east Scotland, beyond rural Scotland and applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. In northeast Scotland we are well placed to contribute to many debates that affect rural society throughout the United Kingdom.
Other speakers in the debate will touch on the many areas in which Aberdeen and north-east Scotland make an important and dynamic contribution to our economy. Although it is important to recognise the contribution of oil and gas and the increasing contribution made by the knowledge economy in north-east Scotland, we cannot forget the traditional role of north-east Scotland as an agricultural area and recognise that primarily, outside the major conurbation of Aberdeen, it is a rural area.
I am moved to make at least one comment on the somewhat idiosyncratic contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to the debate. His criticism that the Government do not care about agriculture is simply beyond belief. The figures do not stack up in any way to support that assertion. First, one simple figure is that £400 million per year, year on year, of public money is used to support Scottish agriculture. That is at least one measure of the Government's contribution to an important industry.
Secondly, in all the past three years, in recognition of the problems that the livestock industry has been facing in the hills of rural Scotland, the Government have found additional money to give extra support to that particularly vulnerable sector of the industry. So it is a total nonsense to suggest that the Government do not care for agriculture. They do, and they put their money where their mouth is, absolutely and completely.
However, it is true that the rural economy is changing; rural society is changing. The rural economy in north-east Scotland is a success. The figures indicate that we have a rural economy based in Aberdeenshire which has increasing population levels, good jobs, high wages and low unemployment. The issue of outward rural migration throughout much of the north-east and rural Scotland generally has been turned round. Rural Scotland is an attractive and dynamic place with an attractive, dynamic economy.

1361
That success is based increasingly on diversity. It is based on individual enterprise and flair, responding to market opportunities, often through adding value to the high quality of the primary products which we produce.
However, we must recognise that the primary sectors are undergoing difficulties. With the best will in the world, because of world trends. it is hard to see those difficulties disappearing in the short term. But that should not be a cause for despair; it should be a spur to find solution, to accept the challenge. The opportunity exists for north-east Scotland to lead the way and develop approaches to rural development that can be of relevance not only to the north-east, not only to Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom.
It is my belief that that approach should have a number of elements to it: first, a move away from dependence on commodity production and commodity prices, a move towards recognising the importance of demonstrating quality and adding value, being close to the market and providing customers with what they want. Above all, we must have an approach and a sensitivity which emphasises and rewards flair and individual enterprise.
Essentially, there is a need for a change of culture, to an extent, which recognises that the dependency culture of a subsidy-driven agriculture regime that we have through the CAP is thwarting individual enterprise and individual adjustment to difficult circumstances.
I believe that we must—and I try to do this—provide a framework that will encourage local people and local communities to accept responsibility for their own development. That often sounds a simple, easy and attractive option. It is not. Accepting responsibility is often difficult and, I am afraid, causes local conflicts. In the end, I am convinced that a bottom-up approach to rural development stands a much greater chance of bringing about sustainable rural development than any of the heavy handed, top-down approaches we have seen in the past. It is a means by which local communities can be energised and helped to solve their own difficulties and problems.
I do not underestimate the difficulties inherent in that approach, but there are real and distinctive opportunities to make a breakthrough in north-east Scotland and set the pace for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Within Aberdeen there is a concentration of rural-related research institutes which is quite unique. We have what is now referred to as the MLURI, but I still refer to it as the Macaulay Land-Use Research Institute, the Rowett Research Institute and the Scottish Agricultural College. Within my own university of Aberdeen, there has been considerable investment in providing a rural research infrastructure, through our own departments of agriculture and forestry, but perhaps most significantly, with the setting up of the Arkleton Rural Research Institute. Individually, those institutes and departments are at the forefront of advancing a new
1362
rural agenda. The challenge must be to harness the intellectual imagination and practical common sense that resides in the individual institutions,
thereby providing a framework that will bring benefits not only for north-east Scotland but for rural Britain generally.
In that context, government have a role to play. I have been enormously heartened by the decision to establish the Scottish food standards agency in Aberdeen. That is a beginning. I believe government can go further, it can encourage, support and enable. I look forward to a further flourishing of rural Scotland coming from the north-east.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I confess that I was to some extent tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, on his theme of aviation. That is particularly because of my own association with helicopter activities in that part of 'the world. It is worth pointing out that they very much led the way in terms of organisation, safety and the conduct of such activities. I mean not only in terms of offshore North Sea activities, but also helicopter activities throughout the world.
I was also rather tempted to talk about rail, but as I am catching the 9.30 sleeper to Aberdeen, that might be tempting fate. Therefore, I shall develop a totally different theme. In a sense, in part it follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said about the role of the University of Aberdeen. The noble Lord referred to certain aspects of that university, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, will say rather more about it in a moment.
I should like to refer to the Robert Gordon University, which is another major example of the role of further education and how it operates in that part of the world. I refer not only to the benefits it offers to the north-east of Scotland, but to those that it offers to the UK as a whole, and internationally. The Robert Gordon University complements the more conventional academic nature of the University of Aberdeen (if I may so describe it). The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, shakes his head, but I have not got to the point. The noble Lord described many other aspects of that university which complement what I shall describe as the important elements of the Robert Gordon University.
I declare a very minor interest as a patron of the university's development appeal. I quote the university's annual report:
"The Robert Gordon University enters the new millennium providing almost 10,000 full and part-time students with more than 300 courses covering a broad spectrum of subjects in the arts, management, engineering, pharmacy, health and the sciences, and is well equipped to respond to the challenges of the future. The national and international standing of our graduates and our staff bear testimony to the success of our vocational approach to higher education and the ongoing synergy between the University and industry, commerce and other organisations in the private and public sector".
That says it all. It is a neat summary of what the Robert Gordon University does and how it is perceived locally, nationally and across the world.

1363
But the university has other notable achievements to its name. It has the lowest level of graduate unemployment among Scottish universities. Only 2.1 per cent are still unemployed six months after graduation. Its links with industry are extensive. That is reflected in at least three distinct ways. It has the highest income from private industry and public corporations relative to the number of full-time staff, and in return it offers the most extensive portfolio of business and management courses in the North of Scotland. More than that, it uses industry professionals, experts in their field, to help to design the courses, many of which are accredited by professional bodies.
There is also a practical link in the all-important matter of survival training for the oil, gas and marine industry by RGIT Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of RGU. Any of us who have worked in the offshore industry, including myself as a helicopter pilot, know how essential is that training and how well it has been pioneered by RGIT Ltd. Among those areas of its work closer to the public sector, it is worth pointing out that the Robert Gordon University's School of Nursing and Midwifery is the largest in the North of Scotland. The School of Pharmacy is the oldest in the United Kingdom; indeed, it is home to the only World Health Organisation collaborative centre for training in drug management and pharmacy practice. Having spent many years working in the health service, I for one know how vital that is.
These achievements deserve to be placed on the record—indeed, trumpeted—for the Robert Gordon University contributes massively to Aberdeen's record and status as both a seat of learning and substantial industrial capital of the north-east of Scotland. It contributes not only to our national UK economy, but on a wider international scale.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I join those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld on introducing this debate. He and I share a love of the city of Aberdeen. He is a native-born Aberdonian whose father was a very distinguished councillor and respected Lord Provost of that city. He has an advantage over me in that respect. I am a newcomer having arrived in Aberdeen at about the age of four. I have spent most of my life in Aberdeen. I had the privilege of representing part of the city in the other place for 27 years. I can just about claim that I am now a real Aberdonian. I frequently refer to myself as an Aberdeen nationalist. I see my noble friend Lord Kirkhill shaking his head about my being accepted as a true Aberdonian. We shall sort that out outside the Chamber.
I extend my congratulations to both Aberdeen City Council in its bid for the Scottish Food Standards Agency to be located in the city and the Scottish Executive on accepting that bid and proceeding with it. I believe that to be a vote of confidence in the institutions of the city of Aberdeen. Over its history the city has had to face many different challenges. It has
1364
been at the forefront of the challenges posed by the rural economy and its hinterland, and so forth. But none of the challenges over the years can match those presented by the advent of the North Sea oil industry. My noble friend referred to that earlier and the part played by my noble friend Lord Kirkhill.
But it is characteristic of the city that all sections of society faced up to the challenge. The local authority, the chamber of commerce, the oil industry and the Scottish Office all worked together to enhance the prosperity of the city. Prosperity can be measured in many ways, but it is within my living memory that unemployment levels in the city were double the Scottish average, which in turn was double the UK average. Therefore, Aberdeen once had an unemployment rate four times the national average. Today, unemployment levels are so low that they are the envy of almost every other part of the UK.
Having said that, we should be careful not to wallow in self-congratulation about how well everything is going in the city of Aberdeen. Time does not stand still and new challenges are thrown up all the time. One of the present challenges is to ensure that general prosperity, which is very high in the city of Aberdeen, reaches out to all levels of society. It has been estimated by the city council that it needs to spend £1 billion over the next 30 years on the housing stock to catch up on repairs and upgrade dwellings. That is a lot of money.
My noble friend Lord Hogg said that there were pockets of deprivation in the city, as there are. There are elements of quite severe unemployment. Aberdeen has a very serious drug misuse problem, and addiction brings great tragedy and heartache to many families. I accept that the scale and number of the problems faced by the city do not match those in the central belt, but for individual families the tragedies are just as great. It is not just a question of numbers. The impact of bad housing, high unemployment and social deprivation has a debilitating effect on all people. In general I understand the view of the Government. I believe that money must be spent where the greatest problems arise. However, it is necessary for Aberdeen, despite its prosperity, to get its fair share of help.
There is a feeling in Aberdeen, which I hope does not sound as if we complain all the time, that others believe that the city can get on with its own problems. Aberdeen is willing to tackle its problems, but to do so a conundrum must be solved. Government, whether based in Westminster, Whitehall, the Scottish Office in Edinburgh or the Scottish Executive in Holyrood, must find a way to ensure that if Aberdeen and other parts of the North-East are to improve their prospects the purse strings are loosened. On the one hand, in general the Scottish Executive and government say that they cannot give much more money because of huge problems elsewhere. On the other hand, they say that those concerned cannot spend more than they are told to spend. In those circumstances, a double bind is imposed on those who want to make progress.
I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply she will accept that the people of Aberdeen remain optimistic about the future, that they believe the

1365
challenges have been faced, and that they still have an innovative spirit. But they need encouragement from elsewhere in the form of recognition of the problems and the provision of a little help. But, above all, those in the North-East who have the expertise must be allowed to use it in the full knowledge that it will benefit everyone in Aberdeen and north-east Scotland.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, for this chance to sing the praises of Aberdeen and the North-East and to make sure that others recognise what is happening there. I should like to draw on two examples to reinforce what other noble Lords have said. I shall take one example from the city of Aberdeen, and another from Aberdeenshire.
One should always be careful with statistics, but there is that marvellous historic statistic which anyone involved with the universities of Aberdeen always likes: that Aberdeen city had two universities when the whole of England had only two. The rest of the UK seems to have caught up; but it is very nice indeed that Aberdeen city again has two universities. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, spoke about Robert Gordon University. I should like to speak about Aberdeen University. I believe that the two universities play a major role in Aberdeen, the North-East and the United Kingdom.
It is a great pleasure to find that of those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, we have one vice-principal of the University of Aberdeen; we have two honorary graduates from the University of Aberdeen; and I must declare an interest as Chancellor of the University of Aberdeen. Without overdoing statistics, and before moving to what I believe is the real contribution of the universities, perhaps I may mention two statistics. Apart from local government employment, Aberdeen University is the second largest employer in Aberdeen after Shell, so it is a major player in the economy. It is also a major contributor to the overall economy with a financial impact of something like £189 million to £193 million a year.
However, I believe that the real significance is in what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, called the knowledge based economy. It is the engine effect of universities in creating the environment for a knowledge based economy. Quite apart from its teaching ability—I believe that Aberdeen University and Robert Gordon University have an excellent record—the role is most significant in the forefront of research.
I suggest that Aberdeen University has a significant role to play in that research field. I take three examples. Magnetic resonance imaging is at the forefront of medical technology. It was developed at the University of Aberdeen. A huge amount of related work is undertaken at the Institute of Medical Sciences. Particularly interesting recently has been the fascinating work undertaken by Professor Docherty on juvenile diabetes. Other work has been done on
1366
obesity and Alzheimer's disease. A great many world class elements of medical research are being undertaken. My third example is the Centre for Organic Agriculture, sponsored by MAFF and Tesco. Over the past few months it has started to do research on large-scale organic farming.
I suggest that that role of the universities in conjunction with the research institutes contributes to the atmosphere in Aberdeen to which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, referred. It has made Aberdeen the right place to set up the Scottish food standards agency. I hope that it will make it the right place to set up in future the rural affairs agency too. I believe that the staff of the University of Aberdeen, including the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, the vice-principal, under the leadership of the principal of the university, Professor Duncan Rice, deserve great credit for the way in which they are building up the role of Aberdeen University.
That shows that geography is not a deterrent to excellence or to playing a major role of significance in the whole of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it; should be a spur to being outward looking, to seeing beyond the region into a wider world—in the United Kingdom and Europe—and to being world class.
In another sector of city life—financial affairs—Aberdeen Asset Managers has demonstrated the same: that one can be a major player based in Aberdeen. Fifteen years ago, that organisation had one office in Aberdeen with six staff; it now has offices spread around the world and has funds under management of some £16 billion. Geography is no deterrent.
Perhaps I may use the springboard of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. He spoke of the dynamic atmosphere in rural affairs in Aberdeenshire. I take one small example which has resonance beyond Aberdeenshire. I refer to an organisation called the Birse Community Trust. I declare a sort of interest in that I am an elector in that parish and therefore automatically a member of the trust, quite apart from wishing to support it. That trust has been set up recently through the determination of some local people, with the support of three major estates. It has done a number of things. First, it has resolved a dispute over the enjoyment of property which has been going on for several hundreds of years. It made a fortune for swordsmiths in the 16th century, and another for lawyers in the 18th and 19th centuries, and practically ruined two estates. It has resolved that legal dispute.
It has created a situation in which there is now management of the most easterly part of the Caledonian Forest. It has created a situation in which quite unique water-powered wood-turning mills are now being looked after. Above all, it has shown how a community can get together to do all those things, and then work on other community projects. It is an example of something of importance and significance well beyond the boundaries of Aberdeenshire.
In conclusion, in responding to the debate I hope that the Minister will recognise that much is happening in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire and the North-East; that what is happening deserves attention and support

1367
when support is needed; and perhaps, above all, that it deserves positive acknowledgement and encouragement.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, and to the House for not being present at the start of the debate. I was informed by a normally reliable source that proceedings were to be adjourned until 7.15. However, I do not wish to hide behind anyone else and I accept full responsibility. I express my regret to the House. As I wish to speak on a fairly narrow point, perhaps I may be allowed to proceed.
Several people have asked me why an Englishman is speaking in what is manifestly a Scottish debate. However, although we now have devolution we still have a responsibility to help each other; and I want to draw attention to a matter which is an example of the vigilance of which we must be more and more careful in the future.
When I think of Aberdeen, I think of granite. I call to mind trade union conferences I have attended there. My main impression has been the windswept streets driven with rain. Nevertheless, the water made the granite appear particularly beautiful. I understand that granite is still produced in quantity near Aberdeen, at Kemnay. It is a marvellous example of Scottish and British building stone which is responsible for the prosperity of a number of areas.
I have taken a particular interest in this matter because of the scheme to refurbish the House of Commons car park. The House may recall that I have inquired about the project from time to time. The latest estimate of the cost is £2.44 million and in the other place on 26th May 1999, at col. 398 of Hansard, it was described as being a "cosmetic" exercise. I go along with that.
I tabled a Question for Written Answer, asking the Chairman of Committees to given an undertaking that the granite used in the refurbishment of Old Palace Yard will be British. The Answer, given on 3rd December 1998 at col. WA53 by the Chairman of Committees, was, "No".
Furthermore, on 16th December 1998 (col. WA163) I asked whether the granite setts, laid in the small area at Chancellor's Gate to illustrate what they would look like, were of British origin. The Chairman of Committees replied that they were of French origin.
The project is supposed to be part of the World Squares. I should have thought that if we were going to have a world-class heritage site, we ought to try to ensure that it is an example of British workmanship at its best and a tribute to this country.
The problem is not confined to the Houses of Parliament. I have found references in the press to the British Museum. This may seem fairly mundane to your Lordships. You see, it is all right to talk in high-flown
1368
phrases and generalities, but this is what is happening on the ground. The Times of 27th September reported:
"English Heritage has demanded an inquiry into the apparent blunder, which involves inferior French limestone replacing English material during the redevelopment of one of the nation's most important Grade I listed buildings.".
The Evening Standard of 27th September 1999 recalls:
"Easton Masonry, the company hired for the multi-million pound restoration work, used inferior French limestone and then allegedly billed the museum for the substantially higher cost of Portland Stone.".
Portland stone, as your Lordships will know, is one of the best examples of our indigenous building materials.
The final quotation I shall weary your Lordships with is from the Independent of 4th October when Norman Foster, who has a big hand in the project, stated:
"The switch to French limestone is perfectly legal … On any publicly funded building you have to comply with EU directives."
It was the phrase "comply with EU directives" that attracted my attention. At present, this country is involved in a severe and serious dispute with the French which is undermining the entire confidence on which our community is built. I give this as an example because unless we are vigilant about such issues our indigenous industries will suffer and areas like Aberdeen will suffer like everybody else.
I thank your Lordships for your indulgence and apologise once again for missing a substantial part of the debate.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I take the opportunity to rise in the gap. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld on initiating the debate. Secondly, I apologise to my noble friend and to the House for my failure as a former Lord Provost of the City of Aberdeen to put my name forward to speak in the debate. However, I can plead in mitigation that I expected to be in Bosnia tonight on the business of the House. A missed aeroplane connection proved to be a problem and I was physically unable to reach the office to submit my name at the appropriate time.
This has been an interesting debate for those of us who live in and experience the joys of Aberdeen in its various manifestations. I am out of touch with the economic reality of the city, not least because it was a quarter of a century ago when I was Lord Provost. I moved from being Lord Provost one day to being a Minister of State at the Scottish Office almost the next. Once you become a Minister you become totally out of touch! Other noble Lords here who have been Ministers will agree with that.
As a matter of historical interest, I can tell the House that when I found myself in the Scottish Office in 1975 it had not yet been decided in the higher echelons of Civil Service minds whether or not significant onshore development would take place in Aberdeen or in Invergordon. The subsequent difficulties with the road patterns in the area reflect that measure of indecision. Nevertheless, Ministers have to take responsibility for that.

1369
I revert. Twenty-five years ago, just as I assumed the office of Lord Provost, the Economist published an article, the heading of which was "Cosy Corner". The writers had been up to Aberdeen because BP had made a public announcement of its Forties Field oil discoveries. It was then cosy corner. I believe that we could pay a tribute to the then town planning department of Aberdeen Council, because it moved quickly and made available the industrial space necessary to attract the onshore oil development. Noble Lords should keep in mind that in the early days, Dundee had significant claims to big onshore development. For example, Dundee had a superior deep-water facility at its harbour. Dundee overall, with one or two exceptions, was a day's less sailing for supply ships from its harbour to most of the then oil discoveries. Many in Aberdeen had to work hard to persuade the oil companies that Aberdeen would be the preferable location for their significant onshore developments and much of that is attributable to the persistence, imagination and vision of the then officials in the town planning department. I want to pay that retrospective compliment to them tonight.
7.47 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I, too, apologise for being absent when the debate started. It is commendably ingenious of the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, to come up with a way of drawing attention to his home area and in doing so reminding the House that it has a substantial legislative interest in Scotland post devolution.
My connection with north-east Scotland is limited to having family living in Hatton and having served briefly in Aberdeen with the Royal Navy Auxiliary Service. As a volunteer director of Clackmannanshire Enterprise, I look with envy at the strength of the north-east's economy in comparison with that of Clackmannanshire. Historically, the north-east included the earldom of Mar. It is galling that my Erskine family were separated from the lands of Mar by this Parliament as part of the 1716 Attainder passed on the sixth Earl. So be it.
This is a land of rich coastal plane, mountain and marine environments. Its economy revolves around oil and gas, fishing and forestry, farming and whisky, manufacturing, tourism, education and two prisons among others. Certainly, its east coast location has always granted it a favourable sunny climate, enabling programmable work. Its connections with Scandinavia have blessed its people with a culture of hard work. The problems of farming at this time are primarily of market surplus rather than production difficulties.
However, it cannot all be sweetness and light. Workers who became accustomed to high wage rates are now finding it difficult to get out of bed merely for average wages. In an area of relative affluence, it has to be more difficult for the poor to live out their lives. Sonic citizens are so depressed by their failure to share in the prosperity that they descend into the downward
1370
spiral of drink and drugs. Enabling all the people to participate in the economy will remain a major task for government at all levels.
There is also a potential problem in the housing stock. General affluence has led to the construction of larger homes. If the economy declines—and I do not of course wish that should—there will be a surplus of above-average houses. With regard to price, the market will resolve the problem by depressing the price. However, although that would make larger properties a bargain, the houses may well be too expensive to run.
Aberdeen has generally good communications with central Scotland, despite being 130 miles north of the Forth. The A90 has been rebuilt as a dual carriageway and there are direct train services to London and south-west England, among other places. Scotrail is in the process of introducing Turbostar Class 170 trains on the Aberdeen to Edinburgh services. Air services are wide-ranging and international, despite the bizarre early evening closure regime at Dyce.
Shipping serves the North Sea oil and gas fields, and will probably serve the developing west coast exploration areas. Despite the efforts of my noble friend Lord Thurso to develop Scrabster in this connection, I suspect he will be thwarted by the A9 north of the Dornoch Firth. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, managed to bring Caithness into north-east Scotland, which was ingenious because I would regard it as belonging to the far north; but perhaps that is a problem of definition.
However, I should to draw attention to the Shetland Islands. Almost all lines of communication go through Aberdeen and so the Shetland Islands must be considered to be part of Aberdeen's hinterland. I would remind your Lordships that many parts of Shetland are further east than Aberdeen. I am concerned about the reduction of the RAF station at Saxavord on the island of Unst. Clearly this will be a major blow to the remote and fragile economy of Unst and will leave an excess of facilities in the Baltasound area. I believe that the Government should be considering measures to mitigate the effects of this. The provision of a bridge to replace the ferry over to Yell would allow Unst to hold its population, while enabling people to travel to work on the Shetland mainland.
So, to conclude, the north-east of Scotland has an enviable economic circumstance which its people will do well to protect and enhance. This Parliament must recognise that it has a big part to play in Scotland, and indeed not just in the successful North-East.
7.53 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, this has been a fascinating and far-reaching debate, and I heartily congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, on introducing the subject. This is a terribly important area of the United Kingdom and, in particular, of Scotland.
Aberdeen, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, said, is a prosperous and cosmopolitan city and for many reasons, both past and present, has links with Europe

1371
and much further afield. It is worth mentioning, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, said, that Aberdeen's unemployment rate is well below the averages for other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom. However, of course there are sectors where there is cause for concern. Other noble Lords have mentioned agriculture, but some points are worth highlighting, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said about the speech of my noble friend Lord Caithness.
There is great concern over excessive regulation in the agricultural industry. There is also the question of net farm incomes in Scotland—and of course this goes further than the north-east area—because in the year 1996–97 farm incomes averaged £20,564 per farm. In the year 1998–99 the figure was £416 per farm. Pig farming has suffered particularly, with the largest pig unit in Aberdeenshire going out of business with debts of £10 million.
There are also difficulties in the commercial fishing industry. Positioned as they are in this area, industries are particularly dependent on transport and the infrastructure. Fuel costs are significant, and they have been increasing. The 11.16 per cent increase in diesel duty and the increase in vehicle excise duty are damaging the road haulage sector. Taxes amounting to 84 per cent of pump prices are now the highest of all European Union members. As has been mentioned in the Scottish Parliament, the introduction of road tolls could further increase these costs.
Turning now to the oil industry, as other noble Lords have mentioned, this has contributed greatly to the economy of this area and will continue to do so. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, said, one must be aware of the forecast that 10,000 jobs will be lost over the next 10 years. The mood in the industry has improved as the oil price has now increased to over 20 dollars per barrel. That has created more optimism, but there is no room for complacency. I look forward greatly to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say in reply. I hope she will tell us what actions are planned by Edinburgh and Westminster to sustain this popular area of Scotland.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I wish to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld for tabling this Question on a subject which I know is near to his heart and in which he has much expertise. I should also like to congratulate those noble Lords who have participated in this debate—an excellent, lively and informative debate—about the contribution to the United Kingdom economy which is made by Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland.
Aberdeen is often referred to as the off-shore capital of Europe. That description is well merited: the granite city. I think that my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe is to be congratulated on reminding us of the link between granite and the beautiful city of Aberdeen. It has played a vitally important role in the development of the United Kingdom Continental
1372
Shelf as an important oil producing area—if not in the paving of Chancellor's Gate for the carpark. I should also like to join my noble friend Lord Hogg in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill for his major contribution to this success and I am pleased that he managed to be in his place for this debate.
On many occasions in the past those who believe that they can foretell the future have predicted the decline of United Kingdom oil and gas production, but in fact the amount of oil and gas which will be produced in United Kingdom waters this year is expected to be the highest ever. There can be no doubt about the significant part that the oil and gas sector plays in the United Kingdom economy. Over the years it has provided £89 billion in revenue to the nation, as was noted by the noble Earl, Lord Kintore. It has provided significant employment opportunities, with some 30,000 jobs offshore and over 300,000 direct and indirect jobs onshore. In 1998 the oil and gas industry was responsible for some 17 per cent of United Kingdom industrial investment.
The north-east of Scotland has played a major part in that success, and both the region and the United Kingdom as a whole have benefited from the resultant economic activity. In 1996, gross domestic product per head in north-east Scotland was over £14,000, over a third more than for the UK as a whole. The total GDP that year in north-east Scotland accounted for 13 per cent of the Scottish total. In fact, as my noble friend said, Aberdeen had the second highest GDP per head of all the areas of the UK, only London having higher.
However, as some noble Lords mentioned, towards the end of last year the industry faced a tremendous challenge with the dramatic fall in oil price to 10 dollars per barrel from previous levels of over 20 dollars. At the same time, the increasing maturity of the UK Continental Shelf in terms of oil and gas production posed other challenges to the industry.
The UK still has substantial reserves of oil and gas. However, many existing large fields are well into decline, and new discoveries are becoming fewer and smaller. The cost of developing new fields and producing oil from them is higher than for many other oil producing areas around the world. Although the price of oil has now recovered to well over 20 dollars per barrel, the need for the UK industry to reduce its costs is as strong as ever because of the need to compete for investment against lower cost areas elsewhere. Indeed, noble Lords who have said that complacency was not something to be followed are correct.
In recognition of the urgent need to reduce the cost base of UK oil activity, the Government announced the oil and gas industry task force last November. The task force, whose report was published last month, developed several important initiatives. Those consist of specific projects which will improve industry collaboration with the service sector, stimulate the development and use of new technology, and address the skills needed by the industry.
My noble friend Lord Hogg noted that employment in the oil industry is projected to reduce gradually over the next 12 years. I should not wish to seem unduly

1373
pessimistic given that historically such projections have nearly always proved to be conservative—with a small "c". Indeed, the task force believes that the initiatives it is putting in place should help support 100,000 more jobs in the UK than would have been the case if no action had been taken.
The Government and the industry both believe that the UK Continental Shelf, despite its maturity, can improve its international competitiveness and can continue to make a substantial contribution to the UK economy in the future. I fully expect Aberdeen to continue to play a significant role in that business.
I have spoken of the oil and gas industry at some length, but let us not forget other sectors which make a contribution to the UK economy from the north-east of Scotland and which I am pleased that various noble Lords have raised this evening. I noted what the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said about Shetland. Although Caithness is up for inclusion in the North-East, I do not really know what to say about Shetland. I spent a delightful holiday in Shetland this summer, and I note and am aware of the concern about the RAF station at Unst.
My noble friend Lord Hogg made some observations on the economic infrastructure of the area, putting in a particular plea for the western peripheral route. My noble friend will understand that that is a matter for the Scottish executive. However, I understand that the proposal for this route is the responsibility of Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire councils and that at this stage the route is unlikely to be designated a trunk road. I further understand that the councils concerned have set the case for the road in the context of their draft local transport strategies submitted to the Scottish executive.
My noble friend was also concerned that Aberdeen City Council receives the financial assistance it requires to tackle poverty and social exclusion. My noble friend Lord Hughes has spoken movingly tonight of some of the problems in Aberdeen. I accept much of what he said about the people of Aberdeen and their spirit in tackling those problems. Again, I know that my noble friends appreciate that those matters fall to the Scottish executive to consider.
However, New Housing Partnership resources totalling almost £2 million have been earmarked to progress Aberdeen City Council's housing transfer proposals. It is expected that those proposals will yield substantial new investment to tackle disrepair throughout the housing stock, including areas which are in urgent need of investment like Tillydrone.
I turn now to other sectors. Many high quality and internationally renowned food and drink companies are located in this area, including Baxters of Speyside and several distilleries, whose products I know many noble Lords greatly appreciate and are familiar with. In 1997 there were 12,400 people in the North-East employed in such varied sectors of the food industry as
1374
the processing and preserving of fish, the manufacture of food and beverages and the production and preserving of meat.
Furthermore, as recently announced—my noble friends Lord Hughes and Lord Sewel, the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, have all mentioned this point—the Scottish arm of the proposed new food standards agency will be located in Aberdeen. The agency's Scottish executive will comprise up to 45 staff.
Whisky is what many people across the globe associate most readily with Scotland. It is Scotland's second largest and most profitable export industry after electronics, and the UK's fifth largest profitable export industry after chemicals, metal goods, textiles and office equipment. I do not believe I need explain to this House the statistics which show that that industry is indeed a very important one, both to the area, and to the economy of the United Kingdom.
I turn now to the farming and livestock industry. In 1998 there were 12,300 people engaged in agriculture in the North-East, accounting for 2 per cent of the UK agricultural workforce. The contribution made to the economy by that sector is equally valuable, with the 1998 gross agricultural output in the North-East being estimated at over £390 million or 2.4 per cent of the UK figure. Although the farming industry is facing a number of difficulties as a result of such fact ors as the strong pound and continuing oversupply, as noted by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, it continues to make a valuable contribution both to employment and to the UK economy.
I take issue very strongly with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his statement that this Government's farming policy is not to help, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Sewel, who speaks from his extensive and recent experience. The noble Earl and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, also raised the issue of rural petrol prices. Both the Competition Commission and the OFT have investigated rural petrol prices, and have concluded that higher prices in rural areas are determined by lack of competition, and, to a lesser extent, by transport costs. The fuel escalator is a response to the need to reduce carbon emissions. The issue of land reform, which the noble Earl raised, is of course a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
I agree with one thing which the noble Earl said: it is a beautiful countryside. I passed through it this summer.
The North-East also makes an unrivalled contribution to the UK fishing industry: 3,040 people are directly involved in the catching of fish, which is about 17 per cent of the total UK employment in the fish industry sector. A further 4,200 people are employed in fish processing in the North-East—about 21 per cent of the GB total. By any yardstick, it is clear that the fishing industry makes a significant contribution to the North-East's economy.
I cannot conclude without saying that the Government recognise the vital economic and cultural

1375
contribution made by universities and colleges to north-east Scotland. The noble Lords, Lord Glenarthur and Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, and my noble friend Lord Sewel dealt with that adequately and widely. In fact, as was pointed out, there is quite an impressive roll call of University of Aberdeen luminaries participating in the debate.
The contribution of the universities and colleges of north-east Scotland to economic development is substantial and wide ranging. They are creators of revenue, generators of external income from services, economic regenerators, producers of skilled recruits, and centres of leading-edge research. The influence of universities and colleges in the North-East spreads throughout the UK, Europe and the world by virtue of the education, research and consultancy which is provided.
1376
I am speaking under a tight time constraint. I hope that I have answered all the points raised. However, I shall study Hansard closely and if I have missed anything on which I could comment usefully, I shall write to those noble Lords concerned.
I conclude by assuring my noble friend Lord Hogg and the whole House that Her Majesty's Government recognise the contribution which Aberdeen and north-east Scotland make to the economy of the UK. Indeed, one of the first engagements of my right honourable friend John Reid as Secretary of State for Scotland was to go to Aberdeen to visit local businesses. By working with the oil and gas industries and other sectors such as food and drink, farming and fishing, the Government intend to do all that they can to ensure that that important contribution is maintained into the future.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eight o'clock.

  Council of the European Union: Forthcoming Business
  Council of the European Union: Forthcoming Business
  General Affairs Council, 11 October
  General Affairs Council, 11 October
  Millennium Preparedness Information: FCO Website
  Millennium Preparedness Information: FCO Website
  GCHQ Recruitment
  GCHQ Recruitment
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
  Foreign Countries' Senates: Membership
  Foreign Countries' Senates: Membership
  Death Penalty
  Death Penalty
  North Korea: Missile Building Facilities
  North Korea: Missile Building Facilities
  UK/US Bilateral Treaties
  UK/US Bilateral Treaties
  Outer Space Treaty
  Outer Space Treaty
  Indonesia: Genocide Convention
  Indonesia: Genocide Convention
  PFI Schemes: Servicing Costs
  PFI Schemes: Servicing Costs
  Vaccines and NAPS Co-administration Study
  Vaccines and NAPS Co-administration Study
  National Air Traffic Service
  National Air Traffic Service
  Airspace Upper Limit
  Airspace Upper Limit
  Homeless People: Assistance Programme
  Homeless People: Assistance Programme
  Multi-modal and Road Based Studies
  Multi-modal and Road Based Studies
  Special Advisers
  Special Advisers
  Holocaust Remembrance Day
  Holocaust Remembrance Day
  Freedom of Information Bill: Consultation
  Freedom of Information Bill: Consultation
  LD50 Test
  LD50 Test
  Abnormal Load Escort Duties
  Abnormal Load Escort Duties
  Home Office Minister: Unanswered Letter
  Home Office Minister: Unanswered Letter