Commons Sitting of 16 June 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS (DISPOSITIONS) BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Patchettasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied wth the arrangements made for the promotion of energy efficiency by British Gas and the area electricity boards.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): Yes. The gas and electricity industries have already organised over 200 events for Energy Efficiency Year. I am grateful to them and look forward to their further support in the next major stage of our initiative in the autumn.
    Mr. Patchett: Will the Minister actively encourage British Gas to apply its huge surplus profits to improving customers' energy efficiency rather than the Government taking those profits to finance tax cuts?
    Mr. Walker: British Gas has a vested interest to encourage the most efficient use of gas because, in competetion with electricity and oil, it is an essential thing to do, and British Gas is doing that.
    Mr. Bruce: What are the implications of the concession made in another place that, after privatisation, British Gas will have specific responsibility to promote energy efficiency over and above what was written into the Bill in this House?
    Mr. Walker: In the other place we have recognised that certain things which would take place might as well be expressed as taking place, and there is no doubt that British Gas will be doing that.
    Mr. Rowlands: Are not British Gas and the electricity industry in a unique position to promote energy efficiency and such things as home energy audits? Is there not a duty on those major energy producers to encourage and develop efficiency and energy conservation on a much broader scale than is taking place?
    Mr. Walker: More is being done by both industries than has ever been done. My answer to the main question illustrates that. I am delighted at the collaboration that is taking place.

    Energy Efficiency Year
    Mr. Evennettasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress with Energy Efficiency Year initiatives.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): My right hon. Friend's Monergy 86 initiative is fast becoming one of the most successful campaigns ever. Already more than 750 events have taken place, and we are well on the way to surpassing by a big margin my right hon. Friend's target of 1,000 events. We have issued 140,000 domestic, industrial and educational packs in response to requests generated by our advertising campaign, in addition to the millions of leaflets delivered to households across Britain. Over 3,000 top executives have attended the first six of our Energy Efficiency Year breakfast briefings.
    Mr. Evenett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and congratulate him on the success of the project. Is he prepared to see an ever-increasing role for energy managers, and does he agree that they have an important role to play in promoting energy efficiency?
    Mr. Hunt: I am delighted to confirm the important role played by energy managers in getting the monergy message across. My right hon. Friend set a target for doubling the number of energy managers. That has already been achieved, and we want to see a further doubling of that figure. I welcome the excellent job performed by energy management groups, of which the Bexleyheath management group, in my hon. Friend's constituency, is a fine example. Energy managers are the front-line troops in this vital campaign.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware that there are still areas where there is a lack of knowledge about energy efficiency, especially in poorer areas? Will he ask energy efficiency boards to make a special effort to bring more knowledge of the improvements that are necessary for energy efficiency in areas of gross unemployment and in the poorer sections of the community?
    Mr. Hunt: I am surprised to hear that, but I join the hon. Gentleman in wishing to see the monergy message distributed as widely as possible, especially to those sections of the community who most need help. My right hon. Friend has spearheaded a substantial increase in the grant to the neighbourhood energy action group, and there has been a massive increase in the number of groups which directly help in an efficient way those faced with high fuel bills who need to insulate.

    Nuclear Emergencies
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report on his Department's initiatives in the light of the agreement reached at the Tokyo economic summit recommending that an international convention be drawn up committing the parties to report and exchange information in the event of nuclear emergencies.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency at an emergency meeting on 21 May agreed, with the full support of the United Kingdom, an outline programme of action to improve co-operation in nuclear safety following the Chernobyl accident. This included the establishment of an expert group to draft a binding international convention

    741
    on reporting and exchange of information on nuclear accidents with possible transboundary effects. The United Kingdom attaches the highest importance to this and will participate fully in this work.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that in all matters relating to civil nuclear power it is essential that agreements, understandings and exchanges of information should be organised on an international basis, not least for our country—perhaps my right hon. Friend will confirm this—as there are 13 foreign reactors within 100 miles of the shores of Britain and a further 14 within 200 miles?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, it is very important that the subject is organised on an international basis, and I believe that the International Atomic Energy Agency is the right forum for that. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall give every support to its activities.
    Mr. Barron: Does the Minister agree that, after the Chernobyl disaster, we should start looking at the situation at home in view of the discrepancies that emerged between the reports and diagnoses from the tests on the fall-out cloud that came over Britain? Does he agree that we should sort out our own nuclear industry so that people do not feel the present distrust?
    Mr. Walker: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view. I believe that careful study will show that the various organisations and services in this country acted very efficiently and well, but there is certainly a need for greater international collaboration.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be an exchange of information among all countries operating nuclear power stations, not just when nuclear accidents occur, but at all times in the course of routine operations, so that experience gained in one country can be passed on for the benefit of others?
    Mr. Walker: I very much share that view. That exchange has been taking place effectively between certain countries of the European Community for quite some time. Chernobyl showed the importance of doing that on an international basis.
    Mr. Orme: As the Secretary of State will be aware, the CEGB is engaged in a detailed review on safety of the elderly Magnox stations. When will that review be completed, and will the right hon. Gentleman publish it so that the country can see all the details?
    Mr. Walker: The review is being carried out by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, not the CEGB. The inspectorate has that task and the CEGB is collaborating fully. It is up to the inspectorate to decide what to publish.

    Coal
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the effect of the current fall in oil prices on the demand for coal, with particular regard to the proportion of coal output taken by electricity boards.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The current fall in oil prices is reflected in the successful discussions that the National Coal Board has completed with the CEGB. This agreement will enable the CEGB's coal demand to be maintained at its previously planned level and electricity consumers to benefit from lower prices.
    Mr. Douglas: That was a reasonably interesting reply, but does the Secretary of State agree that we should be considering energy policy overall? Will he consult his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland to see what effect the fall in oil prices is having on the coal burn in Scotland? Is he aware that if Torness comes on stream —I hope that the Government will review that in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's previous answer—it will imperil the jobs of about 2,000 miners and the coal industry in Scotland will be linked to just one power station, in the Longannet complex? Will the right hon. Gentleman take that consideration on board?
    Mr. Walker: It is not Torness that is making the difference in Scotland, but the fact that there is a certain amount of oil firing where there are facilities for it. Talks are taking place between the National Coal Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board and I hope that they will be successful.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the oil price goes right down to $10 per barrel it will be unreasonable not to take into account the customers' wish for electricity at the cheapest possible price. bearing in mind a certain responsibility to the coal industry?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, but it is also right for the CEGB to take into account the fact that oil prices have been known to rise to $30 as well as to fall to $10. Rather than relying on the uncertainty of that market, when we have an important form of energy of our own, which one hopes will become more competative through improved productivity, I am sure that for the long-term assurance of supplies it was right for the CEGB to enter into that important five-year agreement.
    Mr. Mason: The fall in oil prices has already cost the NCB an average of £3 a tonne in its recent contract with the CEGB. To what extent will that cause the NCB to fail in its financial objectives next year, and to what extent does the Secretary of State envisage more pit closures as a result?
    Mr. Walker: Obviously, if an industry suddenly loses £300 million a year of revenue, that will put pressure on it. I expect that that will make it difficult for the NCB to fulfil its financial targets next year as envisaged on the basis of the previous ruling price. Obviously it will put further financial pressure on the NCB.
    Mr. Rogers: Is the Secretary of State aware that as a result of the CEGB agreement cuts have already been announced in south Wales of about 10 per cent. in manpower and more than £20 million in revenue to that coalfield? Is he further aware that during the past year the south Wales coalfield has come back into a profitable position and is making money, yet suddenly the goal posts are changed again? Why does the Secretary of State not intervene so that we may have a planned energy policy, instead of continually lurching from crisis to crisis?
    Mr. Walker: If we had a planned energy policy such as the hon. Gentleman envisages and our competitors throughout the world did not have similar plans, if we were not careful we could cause a great deal of unemployment and hardship. The last time we had a planned energy policy was under the Labour Government who came in in 1964, and every one of their plans was violated and broken.
    Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent events have shown how right Sir Ian MacGregor has been to drive for viability during his period as chairman? Will he take an early opportunity to wish Sir Ian well and to congratulate him on his well-deserved honour?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. As a result of the improved productivity figures, the heavy capital investment in that industry is at long last showing some return.
    Mr. Eadie: Surely the Minister must be aware that the understanding—it is not an agreement or a contract—with the CEGB on coal burn will mean more job losses in the coalfields in England and Wales? Indeed, the Secretary of State practically admitted that in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). How many job losses will there be as a consequence of that? Can he explain to the House, when at present in Scotland the total coal production of some pits is going to stock, why the South of Scotland Electricity Board has never tried to have an agreement, a contract or an understanding signed before now? Is it because it is so busy trying to push ahead with the commissioning of Torness?
    Mr. Walker: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman not rejoicing in the fact that in spite of the immense attractiveness of the present oil price the CEGB has agreed to enter into an agreement with the NCB which will guarantee that 75 per cent. of the NCB's production continues to go to the CEGB for some years to come. I am surprised that there is not more rejoicing on the other side of the House about that.
    Mr. Kennedy: How can it be consistent for the Secretary of State to argue in this context that he welcomes the fact that the market is responding dramatically to the falling oil price and he sees it as clear evidence of the changed conditions, yet at the same time to argue that the falling oil price has not brought any significant change in the market which would encourage the Government to begin to look favourably on the pledge about incremental investment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in the Budget in March?
    Mr. Walker: The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that he was going to study the position of incremental investment. The majority of oil companies recognise that if we have a fluctuation in the oil price which started only a few months previously the Government will not immediately change the taxation system. If the price moves in the opposite direction, I doubt whether we shall hear many oil companies suggesting that the tax change quickly in the opposite direction.

    Combined Heat and Power Schemes
    Mr. Hickmetasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about progress on combined heat and power schemes.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I understand that the consortia who are preparing prospectuses for CHP in Belfast, Edinburgh and Leicester are making steady progress.
    Mr. Hickmet: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he agree that if we fail to take advantage of those proposals we shall fail to maximise the energy resources that are available to us? If such schemes are adopted, will
    744
    it not mean that in the end energy and heat will become cheaper? Is my hon. Friend aware that, leaving aside the question of power stations, my constituency could be heated with the power that is lost through the blast furnace at Scunthorpe steelworks?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the Government's role. The Government have taken steps to encourage the development of CHP through the Energy Act 1983, which created a guaranteed market for the sale of electricity from CHP schemes and placed a duty on electricity boards to adopt and support viable projects, so we do want CHP district heating to go ahead wherever it is economically viable.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Minister confirm that the thorny problem of individual metering for CHP for consumers has largely been resolved and there is no technological inhibition to its being introduced? Will the Minister give financial encouragement to local authorities to introduce it in their dwellings?
    Mr. Hunt: I understand that the problem connected with individual metering has been resolved and I shall carefully consider the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Speller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the progress of CHP is laudable, along with all the other sources of alternative energy which Her Majesty's Government are now seeking to support? Will he give us an undertaking that they will continue to support those alternatives, perhaps in preference to other more old-fashioned energy sources?
    Mr. Hunt: I cannot give my hon. Friend a guarantee in those terms, although he has been one of the leading Members of the House who have been pressing for renewable energy sources to be given their correct priority. I can assure my hon. Friend that, despite any other factors, renewable energy sources will continue to receive the high level of Government support that they have received in the past five years.
    Mr. Barron: Does the Minister accept that the Government's response to CHP has been small when one looks at some of our competitors in western Europe? It may be years before a plant becomes operational in the three lead schemes. Does the Minister accept that if, over and above the present lead schemes, CHP schemes were to be introduced quickly, it would bring jobs to areas in need such as the inner cities and into the steel industry and other industries?
    Mr. Hunt: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the subject. The Government have helped to reduce uncertainties by making available financial help to local consortia to carry out the current work programmes. Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that until those studies have been completed it is not possible to be specific about a way forward. However, I have clearly laid on the line the Government's intentions in that matter.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I represent the trial area of Leicester, which has been a great supporter of CHP. Can my hon. Friend give any estimate of the number of jobs that could be created, or the likely savings that will be of great benefit to consumers throughout Leicestershire? Surely this is a project from which other parts of the country will soon benefit as much as we have done?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's constructive approach. I also pay tribute to his perseverance in lobbying on behalf of the Leicester consortium. I was happy to visit Leicester to receive a presentation from the consortium recently. I understand now that it expects to be the fist to complete its work programme by autumn 1986 and I look forward to receiving its report.

    Energy Efficiency Year
    Mr. Haynesasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he plans to brief local authority associations on the work of his energy efficiency office in Energy Efficiency Year.
    Mr. David Hunt: The Government appreciate the helpful part played by the local authority associations, in advising the energy efficiency office on relevant initiatives, and in promoting the benefits of effective energy management to their members. My officials keep in regular contact with representatives of local authorities and their associations on a range of activities.
    Mr. Haynes: I am not at all happy with that answer. When will the Minister pull his finger out? Local authorities can make a massive contribution to energy efficiency, yet here we are six months into Energy Efficiency Year and they are fiddling around while we burn energy inefficiently? Why does the Minister not wake up and get something done about it?
    Mr. Hunt: I responded positively to the hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that a large number of major initiatives are proceeding at present and the evidence is that local authorities are responding well to the opportunities for energy savings, which were highlighted in particular by the Audit Commission, the local authority associations and many others.
    Mr. Philip Oppenheim: If the energy efficiency campaign is the success that everyone expects it to be, could this not lead to a reduction in the use of coal in power stations and hence an increase in coal stocks? Would not one answer to that problem he the extension of the grant of concessionary coal to the many thousands of miners who were made compulsorily redundant during the 1960s and who did not qualify for concessionary coal allowances, even though they contributed coal to coal pools when they were in work?
    Mr. Hunt: All the energy utilities have a great deal to expect from the public in terms of more efficient energy use. My hon. Friend asked about concessionary coal. I admire his perseverance in this matter, and we are carefully considering his further representations.
    Mr. Rowlands: Has the Minister seen the energy efficiency chart prepared not only by local authorities but by a large number of other organisations involved in energy efficiency? Will he consider adopting that chart as a sensible pragmatic approach to energy efficiency?
    Mr. Hunt: My right hon. Friend welcomed the constructive report by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and much of its advice about energy management is echoed in the Audit Commission report, which cited the AMA report as a valuable reference source. I understand that my Department's energy
    746
    efficiency office has agreed to a meeting to discuss progress, and I look forward to further progress being made.

    Energy Audits
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to promote the development of energy audits targeted on low income households.
    Mr. David Hunt: The energy efficiency office continues to work on the development of home energy audits at a price that householders can afford.
    Mr. Lloyd: Is not the question of the price that householders can afford the whole point? As I understand it, the pilot heat scheme has not been a great success precisely because people on low incomes cannot afford to pay for the energy audit. If we are to recognise the problems that that will cause this winter of deaths and of people who suffer greatly, would it not be sensible if we were to offer a free energy audit under, for example, the home insulation scheme, or must we wait for more bad headlines this winter and a change of Government?
    Mr. Hunt: That question gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the enormous impact made by the homes insulation scheme and its importance to overall energy efficiency. Under the homes insulation scheme 90 per cent. grants were introduced by this Government in 1980 and have so far helped over 300,000 elderly or disabled householders on low incomes to insulate their lofts and tanks. I highlight for the hon. Gentleman's attention the recently published monergy guide, which can be used as a basic but comprehensive do-it-yourself home energy audit. As I said earlier, we continually stress the importance of voluntary sector insulation projects. They have already insulated over 170,000 homes and expect to do a further 60,000 by the end of 1986. This is a speedy and effective way to get through to the people who need such help most.
    Mr. Michael Morris: My hon. Friend will know that the trial energy audit schemes were not a success. As this is such an important subject, is there not a strong case for trying to target on new private and public sector houses so that at least we can start something positive?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is sad that that heat audit was not a success, but I defend my Department's participation in it because it was important to monitor its effect. My hon. Friend is right: the major focus of attention must be on new buildings.

    Refuse (Oil Conversion)
    Dr. Twinnasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the University of Manchester Institue of Science and Technology's project to convert refuse into oil.
    Mr. David Hunt: My Department is arranging to have an independent evaluation of the refuse to oil process carried out by a firm of consulting engineers. This assessment will be put in hand shortly and should provide an up-to-date appraisal of the technical and economic prospects and of the major problems that remain to be overcome.
    Dr. Twinn: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Does he realise that we have in Edmonton the country's largest

    747
    waste incinerator, which is already producing and recycling waste and producing 158,000MW hours of electricity a year? Can he reassure the House that the Government will continue to look for uses for waste to make sure that we get energy from it?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. I know that the country's largest municipal waste incinerator, which handles 400,000 tonnes of waste a year, is located in his constituency. My Department puts a great deal of money into researching ways of ensuring that we make the maximum use of waste. My hon. Friend has previously used the slogan that the nation cannot possibly afford to waste waste.
    Mr. Douglas: Can the Minister give us more details about the project? Do the terms of reference include an examination of scaling up and comparisons with other projects, including the deriving of oil or gas from coal?
    Mr. Hunt: A study of the Greater Manchester council—UMIST—project on the liquefaction of rubbish to oil was made by my Department's energy technology support unit last year. The indications were that while there appeared to be great potential in the project, a number of technical, economic and scale-up problems still needed to be overcome. The unit's assessment suggested that the process would provide less energy and at a considerably higher cost than direct combustion of refuse and would require a subsidy of about £22 per tonne to break even. However, following representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), I have agreed to a further study being carried out.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am most grateful to him for responding to my request to have the project reviewed? One of the leading exponents is Professor McAuliffe, who is a distinguished scientist and one of my constituents. Will my hon. Friend follow my example and visit UMIST to see the Manoil project for himself?
    Mr. Hunt: I find my hon. Friend's request irresistible, particularly as he invites me to follow his example. I should welcome an opportunity of seeing the process for myself, and I shall make arrangements to do so as soon as possible.
    Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman must give the House more information, because he knows that Salford university's industrial centre carried out a feasibility study on that Manoil project and concluded that a commercial plant, at a cost of £12·5 million, would be feasible. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to fit that work into the remit of the independent consultant engineers? What will their review cost? The hon. Gentleman must also tell us why Harwell has so dramatically changed its mind.
    Mr. Hunt: I reject the final point made by the hon. Gentleman, but surely he accepts that where we have a potential of this magnitude it is necessary to conduct the most comprehensive studies. I shall let the hon. Gentleman know the cost, and I accept his view that the study by the consultant engineers must have the widest possible remit so that we can look to the future and examine the potential of the process.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Stevensasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the latest figure of annual savings in energy costs which have been achieved by industry and commerce energy efficiency schemes.
    Mr. David Hunt: Action taken by participants in energy efficiency schemes supported by my Department is currently leading to annual savings of £500 million, but much more is possible. Improved energy efficiency in industrial and commercial buildings alone could save £800 million a year.
    Mr. Stevens: I thank my hon. Friend for that: encouraging reply. Does he agree that in view of the potential saving of £2 billion from the energy efficiency schemes they could play an important part in helping British industry to be competitive? Will he continue to highlight those schemes and the savings that come from them?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that we cannot afford for a moment longer to allow £2 billion to be wasted in industry and commerce. We are talking about bottom-line savings, because they can feed straight through to making products and services more competitive. They also release more money for investment and, as well as releasing more money for profits, they can produce greater job security for the future.

    Domestic Energy Saving
    Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether further resources will be made available for domestic energy saving.
    Mr. David Hunt: This Government's Energy Efficiency Year already represents a massive step up in the campaign to overcome market barriers and to improve standards of energy efficiency in the home.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: is it not true that the amount allocated for that purpose has not been taken up in recent years? Should we not have new incentives, such as grants for thermostats and more money for the voluntary sector scheme, which is working so well?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the way in which the homes insulation scheme has been successful in promoting the insulation of lofts and tanks. However, the history has always been one of underspend. The 1986–87 homes insulation scheme allocation is expected fully to meet total demand. That scheme is a crucial part of any campaign to introduce greater energy efficiency in the home. I shall carefully consider the hon. Gentleman's points.

    Gas and Electricity (Standing Charges)
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the ending of the scheme for making refunds on standing charges for gas and electricity.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Tariffs are a matter for the industries. As they made clear when ending the schemes, these had proved to he much more costly than anticipated

    749
    and were largely providing help to those who clearly did not need it —for example, second home owners. The ending of the schemes was welcomed by the consumers' and consultative councils.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was right to end the scheme for second home owners who clearly did not need it, but that it was a tragedy to end it for small users, who were generally elderly pensioners or unemployed people who, to my own knowledge, saved on the use of energy in order to benefit from the scheme? Will he have talks with the industry with the intention of restoring the scheme for pensioners and those on very small incomes?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is uncharacteristically incorrect in saying that most of the scheme's beneficiaries were pensioners and those on low incomes. Standing charges cover unavoidable costs incurred by the industries in keeping supplies available, such as maintenance, meter reading, accounting and billing, and emergency services. Abolition would penalise many of the less well off, because lost revenue of £550 million for each industry would have to be recovered through increased unit charges. That would harm those with large heating needs, such as the sick, the disabled, the very young and the old.
    Mr. Haynes: When will the Minister wake up to the fact that standing charges have been a backdoor method of increasing prices for long enough? As the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) asked, when will the Minister take note of pensioners and those on low incomes? Those changes are among the items from which they seek relief. Will the Government seriously consider abolishing standing charges altogether?
    Mr. Goodlad: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), there is no reason to abolish standing charges. The hon. Gentleman will realise that help to the less well off is best directed through the social security system. As he will know, the Government have done much to improve provision under the social security system. Supplementary benefit is up 6 per cent. in real terms, and more than £400 million was spent on heating additions in 1984–85, which is £140 million more in real terms than was spent in 1978–79.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I do not normally agree with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), but standing charges cause great anxiety to my constituents, particularly the elderly. Should not the cost of the meter, and so on, be included in the tariff, so that one pays more the more energy one uses? Let us do away with standing charges. They are an unfair way of taxing the elderly.
    Mr. Goodlad: As I have said, it would be disadvantageous to the elderly if the cost of standing charges was included in the unit rate, particularly for those who use a lot of energy as opposed to those who do not use much, but who give rise to certain charges to the industry.
    Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that pensioners feel strongly about this issue and that those who do not qualify for heating allowances but who are on low incomes suffer the full brunt of the Government's pricing policy, which is to force up the price of energy? If the Minister is not prepared to abolish standing charges, which is what most people want, he should come up with
    750
    an acceptable alternative that will benefit pensioners who do not get fuel allowances, and not just say that it cannot be done.
    Mr. Goodlad: It would not be to the benefit of pensioners overall if standing charges were abolished. The hon. Gentleman is not correct to say that we have been forcing up the price of energy. In the three years 1982 to 1985, domestic electricity prices rose by only 6 per cent. Under the Labour Government they rose by 2 per cent., on average, every six weeks. Domestic gas costs the same in real terms today as it did in 1970.

    Nuclear Power Industry
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he plans to raise the question of safety standards in the nuclear power industry with the European Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Peter Walker: At its meeting on 3 June the Energy Council discussed the implications of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. Member states of the Community agreed that internationally the appropriate forum in which to take follow-up action on nuclear safety issues is the International Atomic Energy Agency.
    Mr. Pike: What recent reviews have taken place on the safety factors of our Magnox stations, and what future reviews are planned? Will information about the safety of those stations be published and fully discussed by the European Council of Ministers?
    Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that the Nuclear Inspectorate of this country has total control over nuclear safety. It is independent, and it constantly inspects and reviews all nuclear installations.

    Severn Tidal Barrage
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received about proposals for a Severn tidal barrage.
    Mr. Peter Walker: My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations about the content and timing of the publication of the report by the Severn Tidal Power Group. We are now considering this report, and obviously these comments will be taken with consideration. The Severn Tidal Power Group hopes to release its report shortly.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Severn Tidal Power Group's report has been held up by his Department? Will he ensure that the report is published sooner rather than later, in view of the intense interest in the west country in the barrage?
    Mr. Walker: There is no disagreement between my Department and the power group about the date of publication. One must recognise that potentially the Severn barrage is the second biggest tidal barrage in the world and therefore an important consideration. The study group and the Government, who partly financed the study, are anxious to prepare the publication carefully, and I hope that the report will be published in the near future.

  THE ARTS

    Afro-Caribbean and Asian Arts
    Mr. Tony Banksasked the Minister for the Arts what progress the Arts Council is making in directing 4 per cent. of its expenditure to Afro-Caribbean and Asian arts.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): Responses to the Arts Council's plan are now being received and will be discussed at the council's meeting in July.
    Mr. Banks: I welcome the Arts Council's initiative, but is the Minister aware that no new money is involved and that therefore its impact will be somewhat lessened? Is he further aware that the Arts Council has just given a £100,000 revenue grant to the black arts centre at the Round House, which is now in a critical position because of its loss of GLC funding?
    Will the Minister give £1 million capital grant towards the £8·5 million required to allow the Round House to flourish as a centre for Afro-Caribbean and Asian arts in London? Is he aware that the black community cannot raise that sum through the business community? The Minister may care to reply in the affirmative during the debate on the arts on Friday.
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman asks two questions. First, the resources for the minority ethnic groups have to come out of the Arts Council's total budget. I think that it has made a sensible decision in deciding to set aside 4 per cent. of its total expenditure for that purpose. It will be distributed to areas where the ethnic minority groups are the strongest.
    Secondly, the Arts Council has given £100,000 revenue funding to give the Round House time to decide, in conjunction with the London Residuary Body, how to deal with its redevelopment plans in the long term. The Round House is to be given transitional funding to enable it to decide on long-term planning.

    Outturn Expenditure
    Mr. Keyasked the Minister for the Arts what he estimates the outturn expenditure of his office will be for the current year.
    Mr. Luce: My cash limit for the administrative costs of running the Office of Arts and Libraries is £1·2 million in the current year. This is just a little over a third of 1 per cent. of my total programme of £321 million for the year. It is certainly my aim that the office should provide good value for money to the public and the arts.
    Mr. Key: That is a substantial sum. Will my hon. Friend allay fears that the price of success in artistic and financial terms in the provincial theatre is a sudden cut in grant from the Arts Council? Will he come to Salisbury, to the Playhouse theatre, and see for himself the impact of his policy?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the deputy chairman of the Arts Council, Sir Kenneth Cork, is conducting a study on how to subsidise theatres and in the autumn will be producing recommendations on the policies that should be pursued. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government's policy is to keep up overall funding for the arts.
    752
    I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the Salisbury Playhouse. I have visited it many times. I propose to go to Salisbury towards the end of J uly to visit the Playhouse.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that he may have a little more flexibility within his Department's overall expenditure as a result of the announcement made by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The proposed Budget changes will provide a new era of opportunity for the arts world. It is for the arts organisations to take advantage of that. Clearly, they must be efficient in fund raising and as efficient as possible in marketing. I believe that the opportunity is now there.

    Sadler's Wells Theatre
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the future funding of Sadler's Wells theatre.
    Mr. Luce: I am confident that Sadler's Wells has all the resources for a full season in the current year and that prospects for the future are good. Arts Council grants for subsequent years are a matter to be determined at a later stage.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that Sadler's Wells not only a centre of excellence for opera and ballet in this country, but has now become an international venue, visited by the whole world? We are grateful to the Arts Council and to the Minister for their efforts to preserve its short-term future, but is he aware that, because of its nature, it needs to have at least a three-year planning programme? It cannot stage an opera at the drop of a hat. Will the Minister negotiate with the Arts Council to secure revenue grants for at least three years so that forward planning can be effective?
    Mr. Luce: I agree that Sadler's Wells is a great centre of excellence. Indeed, I was glad to he there last week for the 60th anniversary of the Ballet Rambert. Although Sadler's Wells is financially secure for this year, the fact is that the vast majority of its funding comes not from the Arts Council or central Government, but from a variety of other sources, including the box office and sponsorship. I am glad that Northern Telecom provided substantial sponsorship this year. In the longer term, Sadler's Wells must look not only to central Government but to a variety of sources.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently I was besieged by members of a ballet class in my constituency, when 100 ballet dancers of all ages pleaded for the continuation of Sadler's Wells? I accept that it cannot have a long-term guarantee, but will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will not stand by and see Sadler's Wells go to the wall?
    Mr. Luce: I imagine that that was a siege that my hon. Friend enjoyed. I assure him that the theatre workshop proposal that is being planned for Sadler's Wells is well on the road to being established, thanks to funding support from a number of sources. I am optimistic that that will help.
    Mr. Chris Smith: I welcome the Minister's tributes to the work done by Sadler's Wells, but can he tell us, even

    753
    at this stage, whether the same order of funding—the £100,000 package for the touring companies that rescued Sadler's Wells this year—will be available next year? If not, despite the frantic efforts of Sadler's Wells to obtain private sponsorship, it will be in serious financial trouble.
    Mr. Luce: I know that the hon. Gentleman, who represents that area, takes the closest possible interest in Sadler's Wells. It is not possible to give a precise undertaking beyond this financial year, because the Arts Council does not know the precise figure that it will receive for next year and the following year, only the broad planning figure. I am confident that it will be possible for Sadler's Wells to continue and that the Arts Council will be able to continue its support.

    Government Achievements
    Mr. Murphyasked the Minister for the Arts if he will indicate the main achievements of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Arts in the last seven years.
    Mr. Luce: The main achievements include increasing arts expenditure in real terms, safeguarding the arts against the abolition of the GLC and metropolitan counties, accelerating a major museum building programme, introducing a new scheme to encourage museums to increase their receipts, beginning the major new building for the British library, introducing public lending right and the business sponsorship incentive scheme, creating the National Heritage memorial fund, saving many heritage items and improving the arrangements for acceptance in lieu. These are some of the achievements.
    Mr. Murphy: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his brief synopsis of his achievements and those of his predecessors in honouring their commitments to the arts. Can he say where he thinks future expenditure will come from, bearing in mind the increasing quality and quantity of the arts?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government will maintain their support. The overall pattern should be that increased resources come from the private sector in a variety of ways. The Budget proposals should be a help in that direction. The business sponsorship scheme should be a help also. There are a variety of other measures that are designed to encourage extra money to be made available from the private sector. I see that as being the fuel for growth.
    Mr. Freud: Despite his answer, does the Minister accept that there are now smaller audiences, greater unemployment among Equity members and more disenchantment amoung theatre administrators than there has ever been? If the right hon. Gentleman would like to be remembered as a caring Minister for the Arts, will he do what he can to stop the imposition of VAT on the living theatre, because VAT is the single greatest evil now to befall the theatre?
    Mr. Luce: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest, but he gives a poor reflection of the true picture in the theatre world. I accept entirely that there has been a reduction in theatre attendances in recent weeks and months, but over the past two to three years—the hon. Gentleman must know this — attendances have been extremely high.
    754
    Theatre attendances are higher overall than attendances at football matches. That shows the amount of interest that there is in the theatre.
    Mr. Cormack: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his predecessors on their achievements. Has he assessed what the arts have achieved during the past seven years, especially in terms of earning currency for Britain?
    Mr. Luce: I do not think there is any doubt that the wide range of facilities and excellence in the arts attract many tourists, not only to London, but to our other great cities and to many other parts of the country, and make a strong contribution to tourism.
    Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister add to his expected lists of achievements the following? Does he accept that we have seen the disappearance of the best supporters of the arts — the GLC and the metropolitan counties — due entirely to the Government's actions? Will he add to his achievements the crisis into which he has plunged theatres such as Sadler's Wells for the future, despite the present position? Will he add to his list of achievements the fate of arts administrators, who have to spend their time, as they tell us, squabbling for alternative sources of funding as a result of Government cuts? Is it an achievement that our National theatre had to close one of its theatres and allow itself to be saved by the GLC? Is he aware that the director of one of our major museums tells us that for the first time he is running into the red? Is he happy that funding of the arts over seven years has collapsed by 4·7 per cent. in real terms if we use the honest indicator of the retail prices index?
    Mr. Luce: I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. When I first became Minister for the Arts 10 months ago, the hon. Gentleman was preaching doom and despondency as a result of the abolition of the GLC and metropolitan authorities. He said that there was a major crisis in the arts, yet there has not been. Thanks to the co-operation, not only of the Arts Council, but of the regional arts associations and local authorities, the arts organisations are surviving—indeed, they are flourishing. Only last Friday the last outstanding problem on Merseyside was concluded with an injection of £1·7 million by the Arts Council and the local authorities into the region. That concludes the outstanding problems in all the regions following abolition. I think that the record is a fine one.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Pressure of Work (Study)
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will initiate a comparative study of the pressure of work on civil servants in the various Government Departments; and what information is already available on this matter.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Each Department is responsible for monitoring the work load of its staff and exchanges information as to how these issues can best be handled. I can assure my hon. Friend that Ministers and senior civil service managers attach great importance to making sure that work loads are right, and not excessive. Civil servants have responded well to the demands made on them as part of our drive to increase efficiency and achieve better value

    755
    for money. I am glad to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the hard work and dedication found in all Departments.
    Mr. Taylor: I agree absolutely with what the Minister has said about the character and calibre of the British Civil Service, but does he agree that there are some disturbing indications that the volume and pressure of work—for example, on staff dealing with DHSS problems—have reached an alarming level, especially in view of the increased volume of work and the problems in preparing for the social security review? Is there not a case for a comparative study to see whether there is a need for more resources, especially for DHSS staff dealing with the general public?
    Mr. Luce: There is constant monitoring of the work load of civil servants in all Departments to see how they can cope with the work load, but there is flexibility in the Government's policy. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has announced that an extra 5,000 civil servants will be recruited to the DHSS to help cope with the extra work load. There is flexibility in the Government's policy where work loads appear to be excessive.

    Employment Qualifications
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the organisations, membership of which precludes employment either in the Civil Service as a whole or in particular posts.
    Mr. Luce: No one is precluded from employment in the Civil Service because of membership of a particular organisation. However, no one may be employed on work vital to the security of the state who is or has recently been a member of a Communist or Fascist organisation or of a subversive group whose aims are to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Recognising the loyalty to the Crown which is required of all members of the Civil Service, and paying tribute to the majority of them, does my hon. Friend think it proper that members or supporters of Militant should be allowed to be active supporters of the Civil and Public Services Association, such as the branch secretary, Tony Church, at Leicester's DHSS, and his chairman? Does my hon. Friend think that there is a conflict of interest when civil servants who claim loyalty to the Crown are involved in elections to an organisation about which Alistair Graham, the general secretary, has said, "Do not ever vote for Militant candidates"?
    Mr. Luce: There are two points to consider in my hon. Friend's reflections. First, it is essential that, on security matters, we ensure that civil servants conform with the requirements that I set out in my answer. Secondly, in the pay and conditions of the service code, to which each civil servant has access, there is a requirement that he discharges his service and undertakes his duties loyally to the Government. That is another factor that must be borne in mind. We look to an impartial service. I believe that, in large measure, we have one.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister not concerned at the increasing politicisation of the public service? Will he
    756
    undertake to consider the conclusions of the Widdicornbe report, to be published shortly, to see whether they also apply to the Civil Service?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service recently reported on its study of the responsibilities of the Civil Service and Ministers. I noted in the report, to which the Government still have to reply, that the Select Committee came to a clear view, that it did not believe there was politicisation—to use an awful word— in the Civil Service. I welcome the fact that the Select Committee came to that view.

    Unions (Ministerial Meeting)
    Mr. Soleyasked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service unions; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Luce: I have had no formal meetings with the Civil Service unions, but I did meet them informally on 25 March, and I attended the dinner of the First Division Association on 14 May. Topics of mutual interest were discussed informally.
    Mr. Soley: When the Minister had an opportunity to discuss matters informally, did he raise the question of the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Crown Agents? Can he tell the House when a supplementary report will be produced and what will be in it?
    Mr. Luce: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific answer to his question. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Dr. McDonald: Is the Minister aware of the deep resentment within the Civil Service and among the Civil Service trade unions over the Government's pursuit of disciplinary proceedings against those who rejoined trade unions at Government Communications Headquarters? Is he aware that, to many, it appears to be a misuse of disciplinary proceedings as it implies that it is wrong to be a civil servant and a member of a trade union? Will he ensure that his right hon. and hon. Friends call a halt to those disciplinary proceedings before any punishment is meted out?
    Mr. Luce: The GCHQ is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who has clearly explained our policy. I have noticed that the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service has expressed the strong view that disciplinary proceedings should be enforced when civil servants abuse their code of conduct.

    Admiralty Research Establishment, Teddington
    Mr. Jesselasked the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions have taken place with the relevant Civil Service unions concerning the future of the Admiralty research establishment at Teddington.
    Mr. Luce: The trade unions have been given the terms of reference for a review, which has recently begun, of the future of the Admiralty research establishment at

    757
    Teddington and have been invited to comment. The Ministry of Defence stands ready to meet the unions and to consider any comments they may have.
    Mr. Jessel: As the future of the Admiralty research establishment is of great concern to 237 staff and their families, will the terms of reference for the management review include a study of whether it might be more cost-effective for the Admiralty research establishment to remain at Teddington? Will my right hon. Friend ascertain how many of the scientific and professional staff might be lost to the Civil Service if there is a move from Teddington?
    Mr. Luce: Although that is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I can answer in the affirmative to both questions.

    Recruitment Schemes
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the operation of Civil Service recruitment schemes in 1985.
    Mr. Luce: Seven hundred and sixty two recruitment schemes were conducted by the Civil Service Commission in 1985 to fill over 9,000 vacancies in the middle and higher grades of the Civil Service. Further information is given in the Civil Service Commissioners' annual report for 1985, which has been placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Bowden: Are there any special incentive schemes to ensure that appropriately qualified professional, technical and scientific staff are recruited and retained in the Civil Service?
    Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of that matter. We are concerned about the recruitment, retention and motivation of scientists and people in the professional and technology groups. To that end, not only have they had a reasonable pay increase this year, but a more flexible system of pay additions has been introduced. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering ways in which we might improve the starting salary of graduates in the science group, with a view to helping recruitment.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What is the level of black recruitment to the middle and senior levels of the Civil Service? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that has been made?
    Mr. Luce: Obviously I cannot give a percentage figure in answering that general question. General recruitment is not bad, but specialist groups — whether scientists or accountants — are causing concern. That is why it is important for us to have a flexible pay system, which we are now evolving, to deal with retention and recruitment problems.

    Rayner Reviews (Savings)
    Mr. Keyasked the Minister for the Civil Service what were the savings to the Civil Service in the last financial year attributable to the Rayner reviews.
    Mr. Luce: In the 1985–86 financial year, savings of £300 million were attributable to the programme of efficiency scrutinies. Scrutinies have also led to improvements in the effectiveness with which the taxpayer's money is spent.
    Mr. Key: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that remarkable achievement. Does he accept that many loyal civil servants, especially in the industrial sector, are worried that efficiency in financial terms is being allowed to override the loyalty that they accord to their jobs? Will my right hon. Friend therefore ensure that it is a matter not just of numbers but of efficiency in the Civil Service?
    Mr. Luce: The Civil Service can be proud of its achievements in implementing a large number of the efficiency scrutiny reports which have taken place over the past seven years and which have produced accumulative savings of nearly £1 billion, or £300 million a year. It is the Government's objective, in full co-operation with the Civil Service, to ensure that we use our resources most efficiently and get the best value for money. That is what our taxpayers expect and what our Civil Service is achieving.

South Africa
3.33 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in Luxembourg, we understand why it has not been possible for a statement to be made today, but I take this opportunity to press the Leader of the House on the great desirability of having before the start of tomorrow's debate a statement by the Foreign Secretary on the report by the Eminent Persons Group, the crisis in South Africa and the result of his discussions with his colleagues in the European Council.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Biffen): Further to the point of order. The right hon. Gentleman raised this matter with me during business questions last week and I undertook to draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to his request. There have been some initial discussions through the usual channels about this. My right hon. and learned Friend will be able to inform the House about the response to the report from the Eminent Persons Group in his opening speech in the debate on South Africa tomorrow. If the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends would like a statement to precede that debate, perhaps we could discuss the matter further through the usual channels.

Contempt of Court
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a matter that
affects the rights of the House of Commons and the attitude of the Government towards those rights.
On Saturday, the press reported the success of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) before the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I know that hon. Members will wish to congratulate my hon. Friend on her vindication after a long struggle Newspapers reporting the outcome of my hon. Friend's action were categorically clear about what the effect of that would be. The Guardian headline read:
"Change in law to follow Harman win in Strasbourg."
The Daily Telegraph stated:
"Contempt law change forced on Ministers."
Therefore, the press imply that a change in the law is to be brought before Parliament.
That being so, one would have thought that after the Government's almost six-year-long pursuit of my hon. Friend had failed, they would come before the House to make a statement about the outcome of the proceedings before the European Commission. Even more importantly, if the Government have now decided that the law of contempt is to be changed, the only place in which the law can be changed is Parliament, in the House of Commons and the other place.
Therefore, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government are treating the House in an extremely contemptuous manner by not coming before us at the earliest possible moment and letting us into the secret which the European Commission of Human Rights has announced to the world about what the Government intend to do in Parliament but which the Government do not think fit for Parliament to know.
Mr. Speaker: None of that is a matter for me. The Leader of the House will have heard what has been said.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving notice before, but information has just come to hand. As always, the selection of amendments for tonight's debate has been fairly—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should raise his point of order with the Chairman of Ways and Means at the time. I am not responsible, as the hon. Gentleman knows, for the selection of amendments for the Committee stage of a Bill. The hon. Gentleman is a little premature in raising that point of order.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the matter of the oil industry in Scotland, being a. matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration. — [Mr. Malone.]

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
Ordered,
That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:—

Class XVI, Vote 3, Regional and General Industrial Support, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 4, Manpower Services Commission, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 5, Regional Assistance, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 8, Housing Scotland

761

Class XVI, Vote 9, New Towns, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 14, Prisons, hospitals and community health services etc, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 15, Education. arts. libraries and social work, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 16, Student Awards, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 17, Health (Family Practitioner Services), Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 21, Scottish Office Administration—[Mr. Malone.]

Orders of the Day
  OPPOSITION DAY
  [15TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
  OPPOSITION DAY

    Hospitals
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    3.38 pm
    Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
    That this House condemns the policies of Her Majesty's Government, which have undermined the capacity of the big city hospitals to provide care for all their patients, satisfactory training opportunities for doctors and nurses, reasonable working conditions for all staff or adequate facilities for research into improved care for patients and the promotion of good health.
    On Friday 11 May in Perth the Prime Minister, speaking of her Government's record on the National Health Service, said:
    "We have a marvellous record, which we should shout from the rooftops."
    Before the month was out, staff at the Maudsley hospital in south London had been told that, for reasons of economy, they were to reduce the amount of jam used in sandwiches in the children's ward. Nothing could better illustrate the gulf between the isolated world of the Prime Minister and the reality of the crisis facing the big city hospitals in England, Wales and Scotland.
    Skimping on the children's jam ration was not the only, or indeed the most important, damaging change that was being forced on the patients and staff at the Maudsley. All consultant and nursing posts were to be frozen. There was the weekend closure of the neurosurgery ward, so that patients who had had their heads opened up and undergone brain surgery were to be shifted from their beds to save the cost of weekend working. Closing half the beds serving chronically mentally ill patients, shifting the children from their special in-patient unit to a general hospital ward, closing the alcohol in-patient unit — all that and more at Britain's oldest psychiatric hospital, not because there were not the patients; not because psychiatric illness was on the way out; not because we did not need doctors and nurses trained in the best and most up-to-date techniques; not because we could afford to do without the research done jointly by that hospital and the Institute of Psychiatry, the funds of which the Government have also cut. The reason was that the Government would not find the money.
    That hospital is, in theory, so important that it is run by a special health authority, reporting direct to the Secretary of State. I understand that there may be better news. Last Thursday, after this debate had been announced, representatives of the Maudsley met the Under-Secretary. They were told that they could overspend their budget this year. What a pity they had to divert vast amounts of energy and effort just to get a sensible level of funding.
    However, several questions arise. Will the Government make up this year's deficit at the Maudesly, or will the hospital have to carry it forward and fund it out of next year's allocation? Will all hospitals in financial difficulties

    763
    be allowed to overspend, or will it just be those that happen by chance to meet Ministers a day or two before a debate in the Commons? Those are important questions, because what is happening at the Maudsley is happening elsewhere. It is happening to the other special health authorities such as Great Ormond street and the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases.
    The postgraduate research institutes associated with those famous hopitals—centres of excellence, of world renown in the struggle against pain and suffering—have seen their staff and work reduced, their capacity to teach diminished, their research curtailed. But it is not just those hospitals that are suffering. The Prime Minister may claim that she is spending more on the National Health Service than ever before, but it is not true. The extra funds do not match the combined effects of the increase in the cost of health care, the growing cost of medical technology and the increased health needs of the growing number of old and unemployed people.
    Mr. Tony Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.
    Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way just now.
    Even so, the NHS might have just about got by with that level of funding if the Government had not added a further costly element to the equation. That element is change. The Government are demanding massive changes in priorities, endless changes in structure and management, massive redirection of effort and huge geographical shifts of resources. But change costs money. Surely Tories understand that. The cost of change has always been the bulwark of the case for Conservatism, if it has any case at all.
    Many of the changes envisaged would command the support of most of those involved if, but only if, the time scale were extended and additional resources provided, at least during the transition period.
    Let me give an example of what I mean. Hampstead health authority, which is responsible for the Royal Free hospital, wishes to close the old workhouse at New End and provide a better place for the elderly near Hampstead Heath. The Government will not give the authority the money to build the new unit, so it is forced to close New End, sell it and use the proceeds to build the new unit. That may sound fine, but the problem remains of the existing patients at New End. The suggestion is to turn over to the elderly the wards presently used for other purposes at the Royal Free until the new unit is built. Other groups of patients will suffer because the money for the new unit for the elderly is not available.
    This is not simply a London problem. It occurs in every big city in Britain. In all our big cities, the NHS is suffering from reduced funds and demands for massive change. That cannot be done except at the expense of patients and staff.
    Ms. Clare Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that one solution offered is for private American companies to build and run National Health Service psychiatric hospitals? Such a proposal is being considered in Birmingham. It is widely thought in Birmingham that that hospital will he a loss leader so that those companies can build private profit-making psychiatric hospitals in all our big cities. Would my hon. Friend comment on that?
    Mr. Dobson: Yes, I shall comment on that point. My basic comment would be that I am dubious about any American company becoming involved in health care in Britain. I am especially worried about the idea of a psychiatric hospital run by a company which produces drugs used on psychiatric patients. There is bound to be a conflict of interest.
    Mr. Favell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that American company is prepared to build that hospital at half the cost for which the district health authority would build it and will provide the same services? Is he interested in patients or in lining the pockets of those who support him?
    Mr. Dobson: I am interested in the record of American companies in the United States. When the American commercial companies can ensure that adequate health care is provided for the 30 million Americans who have no health cover in the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world, they may be able to contribute something to health care in Britain.
    Big city hospitals were built where they were by the Victorians, or earlier, because that was where people were poorest and sickest. The Royal Victoria in Newcastle, Manchester Royal infirmary, Leeds General infirmary, Bart's Guy's and St. Mary's were built where they were needed — and they are still needed. The communities that they serve are still among the poorest and least healthy. The common measure of the health of a locality is perinatal mortality. The big city figures are bad. Against the national average of 10 deaths per 1,000 Newcastle upon Tyne has 16, north Staffordshire—serving the city of Stoke on Trent—has 15·9, east Birmingham has 14·7, and Tower Hamlets has 13·7.
    The big cities have more deaths from cancer and heart disease, but in addition to the old diseases, they also have the highest incidence of alcoholism, drug abuse and AIDS. They also have the longest hospital waiting lists: 22,000 in Birmingham, 14,000 in Bristol, 13,000 in Manchester, 11,000 in Sheffield, 10,000 in Leeds, 8,000 in Newcastle, 8,000 in Nottingham and 8,000 in Liverpool. In inner London, waiting lists are soaring. Small wonder, when £35 million has been cut from the budgets of the inner London health authorities.
    One example is Lewisham and North Southwark, where hospital waiting lists increased by more than 1,000 in the six months between September 1985 and March 1986.
    Mr. Rob Hayward: The hon. Gentleman said that the waiting list in Bristol was 14,000. Can he confirm that? Information received from the chairman of the Bristol and Western health authority this morning gives the figure for 1986 as 7,944.
    Mr. Dobson: I should have thought that a Member from Bristol would have known that that great city is served by no fewer than three separate health authorities.
    I will give some more examples of what is happening in the big cities.
    In Newcastle it is proposed to close an orthopaedic ward at the Freeman hospital although there are 855 people on the orthopaedic waiting list. A children's ward at Newcastle general hospital is to be closed and two surgical wards at the Royal Victoria infirmary are to go, as is the entire Fleming Memorial children's hospital.

    765
    Demand for some of the services now provided in Newcastle may eventually decline after the building of the new district general hospital at Ashington, but that is scheduled for 1993 and Newcastle is being asked to make cuts now. So the patients will suffer—more than 900 urgent cases have been waiting more than a month for treatment.
    Central Manchester health authority has suffered cuts of more than £2 million and is threatened with a further loss of £3 million in the next two years. Reductions in provision at the Royal infirmary are bound to follow and patients will be turned away. Poorer, less healthy people in Stretford and Old Trafford are being told that they will not be able to go to the Royal infirmary any more, although it is nearer and there is good public transport. They must wait until alternative facilities are provided in a few year's time in the southern part of Trafford, even though it is further away and not so easy to reach by public transport. There are also fears for the future of the Manchester foot hospital.
    Proposals for improved facilities for Hope hospital in Salford for neo-natal special care for babies in Salford and other parts of the north-west have been denied funds. The consultants involved have therefore decided that their first duty is to Salford babies and that from the end of this month they will be unable to accept referrals from elsewhere.
    In Cardiff, the University hospital of Wales has just closed and padlocked its first ward, and no doubt others will follow. No one could call that a rational response to a waiting list of 5,300 people.
    The Greater Glasgow health board has just been told by its general manager that it must cut spending by no less than £20 million per year, involving what he described as
    "fundamental changes in the level of provision".
    Few Scots believe that the intention is to level up, because levelling down is the message in the Health Service nowadays.
    In Trent region, described as a major beneficiary of resource allocation changes, stands the famous city of Nottingham. These days the hard-faced sheriff is more in evidence than Robin Hood. The Government have robbed the regions that they describe as rich. but they still do not fund the poor. Phase 2 of the Queen's Medical Centre was completed as long ago as 1979, but it still stands mainly empty because the health authority cannot afford to run it. Indeed, things are getting worse. One existing ward for vascular surgery is to be closed and there is even a threat to reduce staff at the highly successful special care baby unit at the city hospital. The story is similar in every big city. At Guy's, which serves north Southwark and Lewisham, we discover from the Daily. Mirror—because officialdom will not tell us — that life-saving heart operations for children have been stopped because the hospital has not the cash to nurse all the post-operative intensive care beds. It must be pointed out, of course, that cash for cardiac treatment at Guy's has suffered because no less than £376,000 of National Health Service money was spent subsidising heart operations on private patients, as the recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reveals.
    In Bristol the health authority's plans are dominated by closures and proposed closures of small hospitals such as the Wendover hospital maternity unit and Ham Green
    766
    hospital. However, experience suggests that it is no good big hospitals and fashionable consultants offering their smaller neighbours as human sacrifices. It does not work. In Kipling's immortal words:
    "once you have paid him the Dane-geld You never get rid of the Dane."
    The calls for cuts will increase and the big hospitals will start to lose funds.
    Mr. Michael Cocks: My hon. Friend mentioned Bristol. While I do not wish to exonerate the Government from any blame, may I remind my hon. Friend that a great deal of the problem there has been due to the university medical school and private consultants concentrating on rebuilding on an unsuitable site? Nevertheless, I am not against teaching hospitals. From my experience at the Westminster hospital, I have nothing but praise and admiration for its care and treatment. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that sometimes university teaching facilities override the needs of ordinary patients?
    Mr. Dobson: There is something in what my right hon. Friend says. The big hospitals in Bristol, Leicester and elsewhere should regard small hospitals not as sacrifices, but as outposts. They should learn that the loss of those outposts exposes their central citadel to the next round of attacks.
    Problems are arising all over Birmingham, but one example will illustrate what is going on. The Secretary of State wrote an article for the Birmingham Evening Mail entitled—would you believe it Mr. Deputy Speaker?—
    "Health crisis? What Crisis?"
    The East Birmingham health authority is being forced to close three wards while central Birmingham is limiting the number of cardiac operations and closing a ward at its children's hospital. No wonder the Birmingham Evening Mail in an editorial on the same day contrasted what it called the statistics and the reality.
    The Government talk about efficiency and improving the management of resources, but what is happening in big city hospitals is putting a premium on inefficiency. Careful studies show that closing wards in a hospital which remains open does not save much money. The gearing is all wrong. A 20 per cent. cut in services gives only a 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. saving in costs. Conversely, a 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. increase in investment would lead to a 20 per cent. increase in services. Needless to say, this penny-wise, pound-foolish Government choose the wrong option.
    The most spectacular example of that was in my constituency when the Middlesex and University College hospitals were closed to ordinary admissions for one month — for the non-mathmaticians on the Tory Benches, that is one twelfth of the year. It was intended to save £450,000 on a budget of about £120 million. In the end, they did not even save that—but at what costs to patients turned away and lengthening waiting lists? Such cuts do not merely affect patients but reduce the capacity of hospitals to provide adequate training for the doctors and nurses of the future.
    All the changes that I have mentioned are leading to imbalanced admissions of patients, which mean that student doctors and nurses do not encounter the cross-section of patients required for their proper training. That is only the start. Cuts in spending on trained nurses mean that there is now an overdependence on trainees at night. Trainees are working excessive night duty. At UCH, the English National Board noted that a registered sick

    767
    children's nurse was not always available on children's wards where learners undertook night duty. That is a disgrace.
    Cuts in support services are forcing nurses, both trained and in training, to take on tasks which were previously the duty of clerical, cleaning and porlering staff. So much for the efficiency savings on ancillary workers which we have heard about. If the Minister does not like what I am saying, I issue this challenge: to publish the English National Board's reports on nurse training in the big city hospitals over the past few years.
    It does not stop there. Junior doctors are also suffering. The only excuse for calling highly qualified hard-working doctors "juniors" is that officially they are still learning. Yet, because of cuts in budgets, they are being refused study leave to learn the new techniques essential for their next jobs. Without that study leave, the training posts they occupy may lose accreditation with the authorities and disappear, and so the cycle of degradation will continue.
    The big city hospitals are also rightly famous for their research into the causes of disease, into improved methods of treatment and into ways of promoting better health—some in specialist hospitals, some in the general hospitals. All this is being reduced or threatened at the moment. In one year the Medical Research Council awards to medical students have fallen from 380 to 342, research studentships from 230 to 160, advanced course studentships from 100 to 70. Project grants have been cut by 4 per cent., programme grants by some 12 per cent. Government funds to help with general running costs of research units have fallen so low that, because they cannot afford the general running costs, the research units are having to turn down projects which would otherwise be funded privately. That is not very efficient. Over 200 clinical academic posts have disappeared in the last few years. All this damages vital research, the related teaching and the treatment of patients which is also provided in the teaching hospitals by clinical academic staff.
    All the work that is done in the units is intended to relieve human misery, the pain of sick children, the nightmare of psychiatric illness, the horrors of cancer. It is of worldwide renown. It is work of which the researchers and all of us in Britain can be proud. It is practical and purposeful. But it is not being properly funded by a Government who continue instead to pour millions of pounds into weapons research and nuclear power generation. I challenge the Minister or the Secretary of State to come with me to Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children and see the patients, their parents and the staff, and tell them face to face why the necessary funds are not available for that famous hospital and for the Institute of Child Health.
    Mr. Roger Sims: The hon. Gentleman keeps on about funding. The entire burden of his speech, as of the motion to which he is addressing his speech, has been critical and negative. Before he sits down, will he tell us something positive — in particular, what the Opposition would do if they were in power? What has happened to the commitment of a 3 per cent. increase in the payment to the NHS in view of reports in the medical press this week that the Labour party has reneged on its commitments?
    Mr. Dobson: The Tories had better learn that there is nothing negative about defending what is left of the NHS.
    768
    It is the most positive thing that an Opposition can do until they are in power. When we are in power we shall find the funds that are necessary to restore the NHS.
    I hope that the Minister will not dismiss the examples that I have given as anecdotes. They are facts; they are what are called evidence in a court of law. They are certainly more truthful than the figures he and his colleagues keep peddling. The Government leave no figure unfiddled in their pursuit—fruitless, as it turns out—of popularity. We now hear they are to try to reduce hospital waiting lists, but they have done it already. First, they left off the day cases. They trumpet about day cases when they are talking about people treated, but they change the rules to exclude day cases waiting for treatment from the waiting lists. More recently they conducted an administrative cull, the object of which was to reduce the list by a further 10 per cent. The doctored list is 661,000—10 per cent. of that is, as near as damn it, 66,000. So comparing like with like the real total is 727,000. That is higher than it was during the industrial dispute in 1982 and even 29,000 higher than the first figures produced after the "winter of discontent".
    Our concentration today on the big city hospitals does not mean that the situation in the NHS outside the big cities does not concern us. Of course it does. We need a new approach to the whole of the NHS—supportive and helpful. But the reason why we have concentrated on the big city hospitals is that they and the people that they serve are suffering most from the Government's policies. Of course, many of the people that they serve come from outside the big cities anyway. But it is on the areas suffering most damage that we must concentrate most effort.
    Fortunately, between the Government and their objective of undermining the NHS stands one insuperable barrier — the British people. Our people treasure the NHS, which has served them so well. Whenever and wherever it is threatened, local people join the staff involved to resist. Whether in Leeds, Liverpool or London, Birmingham or Bristol, Cardiff or Edinburgh, people resist. They will not forget or forgive the Government's attack on their hospitals. The Labour party, whose proudest boast is that we founded the NHS, is involved in that resistance up and down the country. We promise to protect the NHS, to restore it and to improve it.
    Mr. Roy Galley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: No, I certainly shall not.
    But we promise more than that. We will change society and attack ill health at its source. We will reduce poverty by the introduction of a national minimum wage and increased pensions and benefits. We will tackle homelessness and improve housing conditions, we will improve health and safety at work, we will make healthy foods available at prices all our people can afford and we will turn back the sickening rise in unemployment. Here again, the communities in the big cities can expect to benefit especially from this investment in good health. We are confident that the people of this country will support us. We are confident that, with the help of the people. the big city hospitals will survive the current crisis. We are equally confident that this Tory Government will not.
    4.6 pm
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "commends the Government on the increased resources it has made available for the National Health Service; congratulates the dedicated Health Service staff for their improved performance in delivering high quality health care; reaffirms the principle of equality of access to health care underlying the Government's resource allocation policy; and endorses the Government's decision to review the Resource Allocation Working Party formula under which the allocation of revenue funds is determined.".
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), in an exaggerated and distorted account of the NHS, made no reference to the Labour party's plans except to say, in response to an intervention, that it would spend more—but not how much more. There was no sign at all of what increased resources would be made available, nor any real sign of where the money would be spent.
    Those outside who follow these affairs will see that the hon. Gentleman's speech was nothing more than a distorted account of difficulties and problems, often exaggerated. There was no constructive element in the speech at all. Indeed, even when the hon. Gentleman talked about perinatal mortality, which is of vital concern to us all, he made no mention of the fact that the rate of 15·4 deaths per thousand which we inherited in 1979 had come down by 1984 to 10 per thousand. There was no reference to that significant improvement which resulted from the dedicated and devoted efforts of the staff involved.
    Mr. Galley rose—
    Mr. Hayhoe: Nor was there any sign in the hon. Gentleman's speech that the NHS commands a high level of satisfaction from those who have personal or family experience of the vital services that it provides.
    The latest poll commissioned by the National Association of Health Authorities and the Health Service Journal has shown that about 88 to 89 per cent. of people are satisfied, very satisfied or fairly satisfied with the quality of care and treatment. This level of satisfaction is probably higher than for any other institution or organisation in the country.
    Mr. Galley: In contrast to what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, is it not the proudest boast of this Government that the health of people has consistenly improved during their tenure of office? There are now more kidney transplants, more kidney patients, more heart operations, more hip replacements and an improvement in the rate of perinatal mortality. Is it not also our proud boast that resources have consistently grown and have not been cut, as they were under the Labour Government? We may have curtailed growth in places but we have not cut the service.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making some of the positive and constructive points which, for reasons of time, I shall not be able to include in my speech. Of course constructive criticisms can be made of the present situation, but it is perfectly clear from the speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that I must await speeches from Government Members in order to hear responsible comment and helpful suggestions.
    770
    I welcome this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's record on the National Health Service and, perhaps even more important, to pay tribute again to the hard work, dedication and excellence of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who work in hospitals, clinics and day centres throughout Britain. By their efforts day in and day out, it is they, not Ministers or DHSS officials, who ensure that we have a National Health Service of which we can all be proud.
    The Health Service does not exist in a vacuum. We can have a good Health Service only if we can afford to pay for it, and health services depend on a healthy economy. The basis of a healthy economy is the prudent management of financial affairs so as to ensure economic growth and low inflation. In 1985 the United Kingdom topped the league of EEC countries in terms of economic growth. Indeed, the 3·5 per cent. growth in 1985 was faster than in the United States, and the fastest rate of economic growth in this country since 1973. Our national income is at an all-time high and this is accompanied by an inflation rate of 2·8 per cent. which is the lowest since the 1960s. Lower costs are good for the Health Service and for its patients, just as they are good for other people in Britain.
    The improvement in economic performance has been due to sound finance, an important element of which has been the responsible control of public expenditure. Within this overall control, priority has been given to the National Health Service. That is why Health Service expenditure has grown as a proportion of public expenditure from 12 per cent. when the Labour party left government to 14 per cent. now. That is why, when public expenditure generally has grown by 8 per cent. in real terms, spending on the National Health Service has gone up by 24 per cent.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
    Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is nodding, so there is no need for me to give way to him.
    The Health Service has not only shared in the record growth of the economy, because health expenditure has increased its share of the GDP from 5·3 per cent. when the last Labour Government left power to over 6 per cent. now. If that is what the Opposition mean by undermining the Health Service, then words have simply ceased to have any meaning at all. Let me translate all this into what it means for the National Health Service. Spending is up from £7·75 billion when Labour left office to £18·75 billion in 1986–87. This represents a real increase after allowing for inflation of 24 per cent. If Labour's level of spending had been maintained, present spending would be £3·5 billion lower than it is now. Our record is hardly a record of neglect.
    Capital spending to replace and improve the hospitals we have inherited and to provide new hospitals and community care facilities will be well over £900 million this year—that is £20 million worth of capital spending every week of the year. A total of 159 new hospital projects each worth over £2 million are presently being planned, designed or built in England alone. Perhaps this is what the Opposition, who cut the capital programme for the NHS when they were in power, mean by undermining the Health Service.
    The foundation of a successful and developing Health Service is its staff. We are lucky that the National Health

    771
    Service recruits so many of the very best people. Since this Government came to power, the National Health Service has taken on more than 60,000 extra nurses and midwives, 36,000 extra after allowing for the shorter working week that was introduced by this Government. We have 5,800 more hospital doctors and 4,000 more GPs than there were under the last Labour Government. Manpower generally is now under proper management control, with the result that far more of the staff are engaged in patient care. Doctors, nurses and professional and technical staff now make up 64 per cent. of total staff, compared to 58 per cent. in 1978. At the same time, the expenditure on management has fallen. Better value for money is just as important as spending more money on the NHS.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is obviously seeking to show his concern for National Health Service staff. Does he not accept that of late, in London, Health Services staff have been telling him that, although there has been an increase in finance, there has been a greater increase in need, and that the money is not enough? How can he answer a consultant orthopaedic surgeon in Guy's hospital who wrote to me only last week:
    "Of course the problems are caused by inadequate funding of our unit, which is extremely busy and in great demand. It would help us all if somebody in your position could help to redress the gross imbalances in the Health Service"?
    I am sure that letter is typical of hundreds that the Minister must know about. How does the Minister answer that person, a surgeon who is trying to do a job as a member of the National Health Service but who cannot cope because the money is inadequate'?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I shall say something about those matters in the course of my speech.
    More money and more staff, together with improved efficiency, mean that it is possible to treat more patients and improve the service. The record speaks for itself. The Health Service in 1984 treated nine in-patients for every eight treated in 1978; three day cases for every two treated in 1978; and 11 out-patients for every 10 treated in 1978. That is hardly a service in decline or in retreat, as the Opposition and some trade unions would have us believe.
    Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I should like to make two brief points. First, will the Minister include the figure for repeat referrals for out-patients and in-patients? Because of efficiency savings, such people do not spend the right amount of time in hospital. Secondly, the number of patients to which he has referred includes a number of patients who come to hospital three or four times. Will he confirm that in his figures for the total number of nurses he is including for the first time 100,000 nursing auxiliaries?
    Mr. Hayhoe: There is no justification for the first point made by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). I well recognise his long and close attachment to and support for health issues. The figures I have seen would not support his contention. He is arguing about 1,000 in an increase of 58,000. If that is his case, there is not a great deal of difference between us, and the hon. Gentleman ought to be applauding the substantial increase that has been made.
    The Health Service is a dynamic and developing institution. It is not a museum reflecting and preserving the past. I listened to the Opposition bemoaning any sign of change or progress, and I am sure that if they could they
    772
    would attack us for the reduction in the number of leeches available in NHS hospitals. Britain is changing. Medical technology and practice is changing and if the Health Service is to provide the sort of first-rate health care that a modern people demands, it must change also.
    Let me give some examples of those changes. There are now many more very old people. The proportion of people aged 75 and over has increased from 5 per cent. to 6·5 per cent. of the population over the past 10 years — an increase of 700,000, at a time when the population generally has remained relatively constant. Those numbers will go on increasing.
    The population living in cities has declined. Between 1971 and 1981 the population of inner London fell by one sixth, from more than 3 million to 2·5 million. and the population of the former metropolitan counties fell by 500,000, while the population of the rest of the country rose by 1·5 million.
    People want health services conveniently available where they now live and not where their grandparents used. to live. The Health Service must change and adapt and adjust its service provision to the new realities.
    However, the change in demography is not the only significant change. Medical techniques and medical practice are constantly developing. For example, one in every six cases treated nowadays is a day case, compared with fewer than one in 10 in 1976. The average length of stay in hospital for surgical cases has fallen by 20 per cent. over the past 10 years; that represents an advance in patient care. Opposition Members seem to wish patients to stay longer away from their families and to be maintained at a substantial cost to the taxpayer, simply to keep beds open. Here, as in other areas, Opposition Members are true to their Luddite traditions.
    The Government are concerned not simply to provide more money, but to ensure that it is spent better. One element in that aim is a fairer geographical distribution of resources. In 1978–79, there was a gap of about 22 per cent. between the three most deprived regions and the three that were highest above their target. By 1986–87 that gap had been more than halved and is now below 10 per cent. For the first time ever, no region is more than 4 per cent. below its target fair share of resources.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend accept it from me that, as one who opposed the Resource Allocation Working Party system from the time it was dreamed up by the last Labour Government and introduced by the present leader of the Social Democratic party when he was the Health Minister, I know that areas such as my own have suffered time and again? It is precisely because the centres of excellence—the big teaching hospitals—have been losing money to other places over the years that the scare stories that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) can trot out ad nauseam have partly come true.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks on these matters with considerable authority.
    The Government remain firmly committed to improving access to health services throughout the country, both at national and at local level. Nationally, that is done through the RAWP formula, which allows for age, morbidity and patient flows to produce a target for each region. At regional and district level, the emphasis

    773
    shifts from the allocation of funds to achieving the real aim of the whole process—improving equality of access to services. In essence that means providing local services.
    It is certainly right to concentrate specialist services at centres of excellence; patients are happy to travel to the city teaching hospitals and similar centres for specialist treatment. However, a wide range of services are best provided locally. Examples include the "bread and butter" acute services. Elderly people are the major users of those services, and helping them to return home is a crucial part of their care.
    People rightly expect to have access to local maternity and children's services, but too many of our health services reflect population patterns of 50 or 100 years ago, rather than today's needs. It is right that health authorities should be planning to take acute services to the growing populations of the suburbs and shire counties and that they should be working for a better balance of services in the inner cities, where local people need good community services alongside the centres of excellence at the teaching hospitals.
    None of that can be achieved by financial formulae.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that there is hardly a health district in the country where some argument is not going on about local provision, its reduction and closures? Is he aware that Conservatives are involved in many of these little campaigns and they say that they do not understand why the Government have to cut taxes and cut services? They want to pay higher taxes and retain better services. How does the right hon. Gentleman reply to those Conservatives?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The Government have made more resources available. I understand those who argue that even more should be made available and I shall comment on them towards the end of my speech.
    Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that some superb facilities have been provided in Lancaster and that will inevitably entail the closing of much-loved little hospitals such as the Beaumont hospital, which was a fever hospital in the first world war and cannot be remotely economic?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She makes the sort of constructive and helpful comment which I said earlier was most likely to be made from the Government side of the House.
    I make it clear that London must, of course, retain its centres of excellence, but London is more expensive and, because of recruitment problems—the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to some of those problems — it is sometimes more difficult to provide services in London than elsewhere. So it makes no sense, as a long-term aim, to bring people into London for treatment that can be equally well provided for them locally. Local provision is also much more convenient for patients and their families.
    A fairer regional distribution of available money is not enough. It is also important that that money is directed towards the groups that the Government have identified as deserving priority—the elderly, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. The increasing costs of acute medicine and the influence and status of those who
    774
    practise it could mean that the weakest in our society come off second best. I am anxious to ensure that that does not happen and that the elderly, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped are not disadvantaged.
    Expenditure on the priority groups has increased by more than £400 million—a doubling in cash terms, from £1·3 billion to £2·6 billion—and that is in addition to the help given to elderly people by the acute services. Those priority services also benefit from the increased number of mental illness and mental handicap nurses, which has risen by 16 per cent. since 1978, even after allowing for the shorter working week.
    It has been generally recognised for many years that, for historical reasons, inner-city areas have tended to be over-provided with acute beds. The London health planning consortium set up under the last Labour Government concluded that the number of acute beds in London needed to be substantially reduced. Patients in inner cities, such as London, are still more likely to go into hospital and to stay longer than are their counterparts outside the big cities. That is due, at least in part, to the historic pattern of care in the inner cities, with its emphasis on the provision of acute beds in teaching hospitals. Those hospitals include specialists' work in their case load, but in big city districts there are 50 per cent. more senior doctors per case treated than there are in other districts.
    Although inner cities tend to be over-provided with acute beds, they tend to be under-provided with primary care, as the Acheson report found for London some years ago. High standards of general practice can make a major contribution to tackling the health problems associated with social deprivation in inner cities. Some outstanding work is already being done in that area and the Government have provided extra money, in the form of financial incentives to GPs to form group practices and 60 per cent. grants to improve the quality of practice premises.
    Mr. Dobson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the 114 recommendations of the Acheson report have been implemented?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Not without notice.
    Standards of practice are still variable in inner cities. That is why the discussion document on primary health care, which was published in April, lays particular stress on the importance of improving standards in inner cities.
    Of course the challenges faced by the Health Service, such as the need to take account of demographic change and changes in medical techniques and medical practices, as well as the need to ensure a fairer distribution of resources between and within regions and between priority groups, can often give rise to problems. But the NHS is facing up to those challenges, and I pay tribute to Health Service managers and staff for the way in which they have managed, and are managing, the rapid rate of change that is necessary to improve Health Service care.
    But inevitably problems and pressures come together in the city districts, where the job of readjusting to a new pattern of care causes particular difficulties. Very often, those districts must also adjust their education and training responsibilities while at the same time, for historic reasons, their hospitals are located in older buildings, which all have their passionate supporters for retention.
    The Government are acting to ease the process of change on several fronts. First, they are improving

    775
    significantly the capital stock of the Health Service. A listing of all the projects would take until 7 pm, so I shall just mention a few: the redevelopment of the Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle at a cost of £20 million, the Leicester Royal infirmary development costing £13 million, the new Good Hope district general hospital in Birmingham on which £12 million is being spent, provision in Manchester, expenditure on the Mayday hospital in Croydon, the redevelopment of St. Mary's, Paddington, phase 2 of the development a t St. George's, Tooting, phase I of the Homerton hospital, and the upgrading of St. Thomas's hospital across the river. That hardly sounds like undermining the Health Service in inner cities or observing its collapse.
    I am pleased to announce today that I have given approval for phase 2 of the Derby city hospital redevelopment at a cost of nearly £9 million, and that work on the construction of the new national heart and chest hospital on the Brompton site begins today. That adds to the long list of schemes that we have recently approved, many of which deal with patients living in our largest cities, or who would otherwise be treated there. The development at St. Luke's, Bradford, two schemes in Liverpool, the commencement of work in the south-east Thames region on three major new district hospitals, and the undertaking of further work on the new district general hospital at Milton Keynes in the Oxford region all represent increases in the capital programme. The Labour Government cut that capital programme.
    Health services are improving in the big cities. Our statistics show that, for all large city districts, the number of in-patients treated rose by 11 per cent. between 1979 and 1984, with nearly 6 per cent. more out-patients treated and nearly 60 per cent. more day cases. It is absolutely moral humbug for trade union leaders to complain about increases in waiting lists, when they and their members were responsible for the damaging strikes of 1978–79 and 1982, which led to record increases in waiting lists and record lengths of waiting lists.
    Another issue that is often used to whip up a sense of crisis is that of hospital closures. In any developing service, some hospitals arc bound to close while others are opening. To look only at the closures makes as much sense as reading the deaths column in the newspaper and ignoring the births column, and thereby assuming that the population is dying out. Opposition Members have distinctly selective memories in that area. Although 227 hospitals closed in the first six years of this Government, 270 hospitals closed in the five years of the previous Labour Government. But what count are services, not hospitals, and patients, not beds. As I have said, under this Government services have continued to improve and the number of patients treated continues to increase.
    The Government recognise that inner-city districts have particular problems in coping with change. But they must also look critically at their activities and resources. It is right that health authorities that have fared well in the past should re-examine the use that they make of expensive estate and the resources that they have tied up in non-clinical work. It is significant that the Thames regions' cost improvement achievements and plans have been significantly above the national average in every year of the cost improvement programmes. For 1986–87, the Thames regions plan cash-releasing cost improvements equivalent, on average, to more than 2 per cent. of their allocations
    776
    compared with a national average of some 1·5 per cent. Those are not Government-imposed targets but the regions' and districts' own plans.
    Since much of the clamour about a shortage of resources has come from the consultants in London teaching hospitals, it is perhaps worth asking whether those hospitals have looked carefully enough at the cost-effectiveness of the services that they are using to support their clinical activity.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: They certainly have.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Well, my Department's performance indicators show that, after making allowance for extra costs in London, many of those hospitals have higher catering costs, higher domestic service costs, higher linen service costs, higher operating theatre costs and higher pathology and portering costs. Is it not incumbent upon those who resist change and who demand extra resources to look carefully at whether existing costs need to be so high compared with other teaching districts and the rest of the country generally?
    The Government recognise the particular problems of big city districts. I have already referred to the major capital programmes and to the review of primary care, but I must mention two other things that we are doing which should help the health services in the big cities. I turn first to the review of RAWP, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). It has been suggested that, although substantial progress has been made in redistributing resources, the present RAWP formula needs to be refined to improve its measurement of need.
    The Government have therefore set up a review of RAWP, which will consider among other issues whether proper account is taken of social deprivation and inner-city problems, teaching hospital costs and patient flows across regional boundaries. Those are all issues of particular concern to the big cities. I am anxious to see good progress on that review, and have asked the management board to report by the end of the year.
    Secondly, the Government have recently added an extra £50 million to health authority cash limits in England, following decisions on this year's pay awards. Of that money, more than £16 million will go to the Thames authorities and to the special health authorities in London, £7 million will go to the north-western and Mersey regions, £5 million will go to the west midlands and over £3 million will go to both Yorkshire and the northern regions. Those are substantial additions for regions that contain most of the big cities.
    That has been done in a year when we have already allocated some £650 million more to hospital and community health services in England. With the extra £50 million, we are talking about growth, in real terms, of 3·8 per cent.—the highest figure since 1980–81. In addition, health authorities, with their cost improvement programmes, plan to release a further £150 million this year, with further planned increases in activity and productivity within existing resources. Health authorities are also benefiting from the fall in general inflation brought about by the Government's policies. The reduction in inflation below that assumed when setting cash limits will be worth £20 million on non-pay expenditure.
    Of course I am not suggesting that more could not be done, that no improvements could be made or that there

    777
    are not problems and pressures. Health care generates demand upon demand. Its needs are never satisfied. But this Government have shown their commitment to the Health Service as a whole, and that is reflected in the improvement of health services in our cities. The Opposition's contention that we are undermining health services does not stand up to any critical consideration, and I ask the House to reject the motion and to support the Government's amendment and their efforts to improve health services for all.
    4.39 pm
    Mr. Jack Ashley: The Minister is becoming quite a juggler. In the speech that he has just made he sounded almost as good as the Secretary of State for Employment with his figures showing conclusively that unemployment is spiralling downwards. The Minister's figures are questionable and designed to show that far more money is being spent on the National Health Service. People's experience belies the figures and contradicts the picture painted by the Minister of a growing and expanding National Health Service.
    The Minister said that there was a high level of satisfaction with the National Health Service. People would laugh their heads off at such a statement. However, we discovered that the Minister is not really speaking about the attitude towards the Health Service as a whole. He was speaking of comments in the Health Service Journal in which the quality of care was being discussed. People do not like criticising doctors and nurses. They are only too anxious to pay tribute to them. Such a comment gives a false impression about what people really think about National Health Service provision, which is disastrous in many areas. The Minister fails to take note of the anxieties and very real concern expressed by thousands of people.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) spoke about the excellence of teaching hospitals in London and of the scare stories from some areas. He does not know what he is talking about. I support centres of excellence in London and elsewhere, but it is not scare stories that come from the regions.
    I have a horror story to tell the House today which I hope to confine to 10 minutes. It is a horror story of what has happened in Stoke-on-Trent and in north Staffordshire. I emphasise my support for my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and others who want the centres of excellence to be assisted, but that must be done by giving new resources to those centres of excellence, not by sapping their income and transferring the funds to the regions. That is wrong.
    My main concern today is to put the case for helping the scandalously deprived, underprivileged areas such as north Staffordshire, which has been deprived for a long time. The tendency is for the Government and the public to accept that deprivation with complacency. The appalling inequalities have existed for far too long.
    I shall illustrate the massive disparities by referring to red alerts. A few months ago there was a red alert at a London hospital. My hon. Friend was the first to shriek and condemn it. The people of London agreed that it was disastrous. The red alert meant that only emergency cases were admitted to hospital. There was a stop on other admissions.
    778
    North Staffordshire experienced red alerts in September—that was not even in winter—from the first part of November until December, for over six weeks from January into February, from February to early April and from mid-April to 6 May. North Staffordshire experienced red alerts for almost the entire winter. There was a stop on admissions and only emergency cases were admitted.
    One can imagine the suffering caused to the sick people of north Staffordshire by that interminable period of red alerts. It was not one crisis, but a perpetual crisis. I hope that the House will take note of that scandal. We must do something about it because the sick people of north Staffordshire are suffering. The medical staff are bearing a heavy burden.
    The Minister referred to the resource allocation working party which is dealing with the reallocation of resources. According to RAWP, north Staffordshire is 12·5 per cent. below target. Planned progress for improvement has been extremely slow, even without interference with the RAWP formula, so that by 1990 north Staffordshire would still have been 9 per cent. below target—the third worst district in the west midlands region.
    According to the DHSS figures published last summer on the value of National Health Service provision for people in all health districts, north Staffordshire is seventh from the bottom. The value of acute services received is only £58·45 per person. Those at the top of the scale—the first 15—are all London district health authorities. They are receiving over twice as much as the people in north Staffordshire. The Minister cannot justify that disparity. He cannot deny the people of north Staffordshire. He cannot give them only half of what Londoners receive. That is wrong and cannot be justified.
    I recognise that those figures are not a perfect measure of Health Service deprivation, but they are a significant indicator and should be taken into account by the House.
    What I have described makes a mockery of the rhetoric in the Government amendment about reaffirming
    "the principle of equality of access to health care."
    I do not criticise the Minister on that score because he says that he intends to review RAWP, which I welcome. But I hope that he does not mean that resources will be cut so that deprived regions will suffer still further cuts.
    The people of Stoke-on-Trent are suffering gross inequality in access to health care. That inequality is not vague or hypothetical; it leads to genuine human suffering. People who are desperately ill and in pain are suffering unnecessarily. The House should do something about it.
    In Stoke-on-Trent people in severe pain because of an arthritic hip joint, for example, have to wait for up to 46 weeks for a first appointment with a consultant. There can be no justification for that. About 60 per cent. of people in my area whose cases are not regarded as "urgent"—that is a medical definition—as most orthopaedic cases are not. have to wait for over one year for an operation. Last December, overall in north Staffordshire, 3,336 people had been waiting for a so-called "non-urgent" operation for over a year. Such cases might be non-urgent in medical terms, but that phrase masks great human suffering.
    Urgent cases, naturally, receive quicker treatment, but even that can be appalling. No less than 75 per cent. of "urgent" cases in general surgery wait for over one month.

    779
    One can imagine what it is like to be told, "You are very ill. You need an urgent operation, but come back in a month's time."
    Because of the revelations about unfair allocation, together with pressure from myself, my parliamentary colleagues and officials of the district health authority in north Staffordshire, the West Midlands regional health authority has begun to move and has given a £10·5 million boost over the next five years, which I welcome and appreciate. That authority also has problems, but fortunately it is shortly to receive an additional £40 million. I regret that the boost for north Staffordshire is far from adequate and cannot possibly solve the problems, although it is a move in the right direction towards the RAWP recommendations. However, some people in the south-east are now suggesting that we drop or change the RAWP formula. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate spoke of scare stories in my area. They are not scare stories; they arc true.
    I conclude with this plea—that RAWP will not be invalidated in any way. If the Government want to refine it, that is all right—but please do not interfere with the reallocation of funds from the better-off south-east to neglected areas such as mine. I hope that the use of the word "review" will not be a euphemism for stopping reallocation. The Government must face reality—they cannot provide a fair allocation of resources and good health treatment if they do not increase the total resources available. The answer to the problem must be increased resources. Reallocation is important, but juggling with figures is no substitute for increased cash for the NHS. I hope that the Minister will win his battle with the Treasury to increase funding for the NHS.
    5.2 pm
    Mr. Edward Heath: I offer my apologies to the Opposition spokesman for not being here during the opening speech. That was due to circumstances beyond my control. It is unlikely that I shall repeat exactly what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, because I intend to devote my speech entirely to my constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup, the borough of Bexley and the Bexley health authority.
    It is many years since I made a speech in this House about matters concerned solely with my constituency—indeed, it must be more than 35 years—but I find the current position intolerable and I cannot remain silent any longer. Some of us have held our peace when believing that wrong decisions were taken, but it is apparent that the damage is becoming so great that the facts must be stated. I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is a prisoner of the system. It is the system that must be changed. I am glad that there is to be a review of the system, but we cannot wait very long to change it because of the damage it is causing to Bexley.
    This country apportions about 6·2 per cent. of gross national product to health services. The general figure for countries of comparable size and wealth is 8·5 per cent. That, therefore, is our first lesson. We must be prepared to devote more of our resources to health, both private and public.
    Secondly, I do not believe that allowing the Health Service to go private is the answer, other than to a limited extent. Those who suggest that we follow the American system are urging something that is wholly unacceptable in this country. The United States, its President and
    780
    Congress are large enough to ignore the fate of millions of their under-privileged citizens. We are not only unable to ignore it, but are not prepared to ignore it. That is why we cannot follow that system. By all means, let us encourage those who can afford it to indulge in private health care, but the great majority cannot afford it.
    Thirdly, as I have said many times, the Government are wrong if they think that the first priority is to reduce taxation still further. I know that taxation is still much higher than it was in the years 1970 to 1974, but that is no justification for saying that it must be reduced still further. If I ask my constituents, "Do you want your taxes reduced?", they will say yes. Indeed, I would say yes. However, if we ask them, "Do you want your taxes reduced at the expense of the education of your children and the health of your family?", the immediate answer is no. Yet that is what is happening.
    Bexley is part of the great city of London; it is not part of a declining inner city. The population in 1981 was 217,000, in 1985 it was 218,500, and it is projected that by 1996 it will be 220,000. It is an expanding population, with a great demand on services, especially health. Moreover, there is an increasing elderly population. In 1981 the percentage was 29·8, in 1985 it was 31·2, and it is projected that by 1991 it will be 32 per cent. Bexley, therefore. meets the requirements set out by the Minister that it should be an increasing, not declining, population with an increasing, not declining, proportion of elderly people.
    As the Minister said, people expect to be treated locally, and I can tell him that the people of Bexley expect to be treated in Bexley. My right hon. Friend was wrong to suggest that people needing specialist treatment are willing to travel to teaching hospitals and for relatives to have to travel to visit them after a serious operation.
    That is precisely the argument that has been taking place over the Brook hospital cardiac unit. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for overruling the regional committee and keeping the unit there. However, the argument took seven years. That is an example of the bureaucratic incompetence of regional committees. They can argue for a long time about such a major facility as the cardiac unit at the Brook hospital. Indeed, that unit has a better success record than the teaching hospitals, and the cost of operations is cheaper than in the teaching hospitals, for obvious reasons.
    Yet the same argument is taking place about the neurological unit at the Brook hospital, and that, too, has been going on for seven years. We still do not have a settlement, review after review goes on, and that is just not tolerable. I hope that I have established that Bexley has an expanding population with a larger proportion of elderly people who want to be treated with the necessary facilities.
    I shall now deal with existing facilities, which is the real point of the argument. Bexley has Queen Mary's hospital which was built just over 10 years ago. It was opened by the then Labour Minister for Health. It has 556 beds, an outstanding maternity unit, many effective specialised departments and a major accident unit. It is up to date. It is a modern creation, yet it is being damaged because it is being refused the money to carry out its services.
    I fully support equalising health treatment throughout the country. After all, I spent a large part of my political life trying to obtain a better deal for Scotland, Wales and the north-east of England. As Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development in 1963–64, I dealt with this matter in the context of north-eastern

    781
    regional development. Alas, those policies have been abondoned by this Government. I am in favour of equalisation, but not at the cost of the nonsense of refusing to use the modern facilities that we already have. That cannot make sense by any criteria.
    Surely the first priority must be to ensure that modern hospitals with all the facilities are used, and then go on to build additional hospitals that are required to replace the older hospitals. One problem with the present formula is that when an area has to build a modern hospital to replace, for example, two older hospitals, as is happening in north and east London, extra money is required to run the two older hospitals while building the new one. That is why Bexley is suffering from less money. We cannot make use of the modern hospital that we have. The system is based on a fallacy and the Government took a wrong policy decision.
    The Bexley health authority found that for 1986–87 it was due to have a deficit of £750,000 and that in 1989–90 the deficit would increase to nearly £1·5 million. Bexley has been told that it must meet the deficit by cuts or increased efficiency. Queen Mary's hospital is proven to be well above the national average in terms of efficiency, the speed of its throughput is faster than the national and regional average, and the cost per patient is lower than average. What more can be asked of it than that? A stage is reached when it is not possible further to increase efficiency and make cuts of up to £1·5 million.
    The Government say that they are spending 20 per cent. more on real resources for the hospital service, but we know that 70 per cent. of this spending goes on nurses' salaries. That leaves a much smaller sum to make improvements elsewhere in the country. As there are shorter working hours for nurses, the burden on them and the demand for nurses is much greater than it was. That cannot be taken into account merely by saying, "Greater efficiency."
    I have often been accused of being a technologist who is keen only on management. I am interested in management, but I have never suggested that someone who is a good Army officer or good at running an electronics factory will be admirable at running a hospital. If I have to go into hospital, I do not want someone running the show who has only just left the Royal Air Force. Nor do I want someone in charge who is especially good at producing television screens. I would want a good matron, and on that basis I would know where I was.
    As my hon. Friends the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) and for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) are present, I should say that the Bexley mental hospital, which has 907 beds, is affected by the Government's policy. Similarly, the Erith district hospital, which has 31 beds, is affected by the cuts.
    In dealing with the Government's demands, cuts are being made. What is the result? One ward has already been closed at Queen Mary's hospital. That means that the modern facilities in which the Government have invested capital are not being used. That ward will remain closed. There was a threat that the ward for disabled young people would be closed. We have been able to avert that threat purely by blackmail. Bexley has said, "A great deal of private money has been provided and if you dare close the
    782
    ward you will never get any more money for a hospital in Bexley." The ward has not been closed. Unfortunately, a general ward remains closed.
    In addition, one operating theatre is to be closed. That will reduce operating capacity by 20 per cent., or 1,760 operations a year out of 8,800. That will happen and that will be the direct result of the Government's policy.
    There is to be a reduction in the number of beds in the surgical wards because of the closure of one operating theatre. As a result, there will be a reduction in emergency admissions. That follows logically from the closure of the operating theatre.
    Less than a month ago one of my constituents said, "I know that you can do nothing about this, but you should know that my wife was taken seriously ill. I called her doctor and he came at once. He told me that she must have an immediate operation. We rang Queen Mary's and were told that no emergency place was available. We telephoned Dartford and were told, 'There is a ward, an operating theatre and a surgeon; bring her over,' only to find that there was no bed available for her after the operation. We were told that Dartford could not accept her. Finally, she was taken to Gravesend." For someone living in Sidcup, that is a considerable distance to travel. That is an example of what is already happening, and that is why the situation has become intolerable. I must make it plain that that is so.
    In addition, the family planning surgical service at Queen Mary's hospital is to be abolished. That is surely a loss. My constituents do not understand why cuts are being made on their doorstep when the Government say that many millions of pounds of extra money are being provided for the NHS.
    The Bexley mental hospital is to be closed eventually. Twenty old ladies who are psycho-geriatric patients have been taken from their ward—they were accustomed to it, as were those who looked after them—and spread around the hospital so that the ward can be closed. That is certainly not a step towards perfection. That is not making the hospital more effective. To move patients in that way is damaging and should not be allowed to happen.
    The operating theatre at the Erith district hospital is to be closed. All consultants' beds are to disappear, along with the loss of 15 general practitioners' beds in one ward. That is because the necessary money is not to be made available, and not because of inefficiencies.
    The community services will suffer as well. Two clinics are to close. Three dental clinics are to close, and there is to be a reduction of dental staff. The number of family planning clinics will be reduced from 10 to four. When these things are happening, how can I say to my constituents that they are getting a better health service and better individual care? It is not possible for me to say that that is happening. If I were to say that it was, I would he incredible, and I do not wish to be incredible.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I support what my right hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that, far from having too many hospital administrators in the Bexley health area, we have rather too few?
    Mr. Heath: That is the case. My hon. Friend and I have spent a vast amount of time talking to hospital administrators, to the Bexley health committee and to the chairman of the regional health authority. It is easy to say

    783
    that a reduction in the number of administrators will bring about the savings that are required, but a point is reached when it is damaging to the service to reduce the administrative staff.
    The ambulance service will be cut because of the abolition of the GLC. Many chair cases will not be taken by ambulance and walking cases will have to find other means of transport to get to the hospital when required. This is happening already.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heath: I have taken too long already. I know the point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make. We have sometimes been in agreement about the GLC.
    I have outlined the facts with which we must deal. It is intolerable that Bexley should have its modern services damaged because new services are going to be made available in other parts of the country. New services can be provided only if we have an expanding economy and are prepared to use a greater share of our wealth to support the Health Service. If we try to take the opposite approach, we shall damage the new resources which have already been provided. That is no answer to the problem. If the Minister is bound to have the review of RAWP, so be it, but I ask him to ensure that it is done quickly. I would much prefer no review to be undertaken. It would be better if he took the action which he knows to be necessary, my colleagues and I having had long talks with him.
    Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My right hon. Friend may know that there are some who criticised the last part of his period in power on the ground that the money supply was growing too fast. Sterling M3 has grown over the past three months at an annualised rate of 39 per cent. What measure of growth would he like to see? By how much more would he like to see credit expanding?
    Mr. Heath: I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety. The most recent figures show that M3 money supply is growing at one and a half times the maximum rate at which it grew between 1970 and 1974. It is natural that my hon. Friend is alarmed when we have a Government whom he supports, which was not the case with my Government. My hon. Friend is out of date on M3. He must listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who says that M3 no longer matters. My right hon. Friend has already abolished M3, M2 and M1. We are back to MO. Perhaps my hon. Friend will wish to follow him and to take up MO, which suggests that everything is all right. That will mean that we can have more money, which will stop the Government ruining a good service. That is why I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister not to waste a great deal of time on reviews. He has seen the problem clearly. It is necessary to let those of us who are fortunate to have modern resources to use them effectively and to keep them. We cannot justify to the electorate doing otherwise.
    5.10 pm
    Mrs. Renée Short: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) described perfectly what is happening in every constituency. I am sure that if Conservative Members were willing to ascertain what is happening in hospitals in their constituencies they would find cases similar to those that
    784
    the right hon. Gentleman described. The Select Committee has spent some time considering the problems. We have ventured into areas, as the right hon. Gentleman said, where there is considerable pressure on hospitals. I am not surprised that the Minister for Health did not refer in his opening speech to the catastrophe that has befallen him in the resignation of Mr. Victor Paige. Mr. Paige, who was in post for a matter of months only, was head-hunted at an enormous salary. He decided that he could no longer continue in the job. The Select Committee will probably want to pursue that matter in the near future.
    Mr. Paige gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee some two months before the Secretary of State for Social Services announced the resignation. In that session with the PAC, Mr. Paige listed his achievements. In 1985–86, there was a cost improvement of £150 million, of which £120 million was cash-releasing. Short-term programmes for the regions for 1986–87 also show a cost improvement of £150 million, cash-releasing — an increase of £30 million over 1985–86. Taking those figures back to 1984–85 and up to 1986–87, a total of £700 million cash-saving will be produced for the National Health Service. By the end of 1986–87, that will produce £400 million for the National Health Service on a recurring basis. When the 1987–88 CIP commences, a base of £400 million will be rolled on and repeated. Anything achieved then under cost improvement cash-releasing will be over and above the £400 million. That sounds absolutely marvellous. Hon. Members might say, "What are we worrying about? All that lovely lolly is available for all the development that we have not been able to fund." The challenge is, as Mr. Paige admitted, that savings must be made and retained to keep on improving services. Certainly, this year the regions are committed to delivering a cost improvement, cash-releasing programme of £150 million.
    The other part of the package is that manpower savings must be made. Mr. Mills, from the Department, told the PAC that for every million pounds released by any region
    "we could expect to see at least 100 people being reduced from the payroll."
    That is, in a full year. There is the rub. Those considerable savings are expected to be made. but they must not include the withdrawal of services or service reductions. The North East Thames regional health authority was examined and the board was satisfied that it was not trying to hide service cuts within a CIP.
    However, the Select Committee discovered, in reply to questions on 4 June, that the volume of resources going into hospital and community health services has increased by only 6·3 per cent. since 1979–80—about 1 per cent. per annum—and most of that was in the earlier years. Since 1980–81, the increase over five years has been only 3·1 per cent. In fact, in the three years since the last election the increase has been less than over half of 1 per cent. In other words, the purchasing power of the hospital service has been at a standstill for three years. That is where all the problems lie.
    Hospitals, especially those in the London region and in all the large cities, are struggling with an increasing number of elderly patients, with finding resources to introduce and develop further medical advances. Ministers have generally agreed that we need a service growth of 2 per cent. per annum. That that is not forthcoming is a matter of acute concern to the medical profession—the nurses, the paramedics, and so on. That is what led the

    785
    leaders of 12 teaching hospitals last Monday to describe the crisis they are facing after inner London had suffered cuts of £35 million last year. We cannot cut that amount out of a large city without damaging the fabric of the Health Service. The consultants, those responsible for delivering expert care and those who have academic teaching responsibilities have complained. Dr. Croft of St. Thomas' hospital has said:
    "The crisis was a national disgrace, many useful and productive human lives have been lost and staff, including nurses, secretaries and porters are leaving because of their rotten pay. Beds are being closed and waiting lists increase."
    We cannot overlook the effects of the review body awards to doctors, nurses, and other NHS staff. Morale falls when pay levels to all but the highest paid are well below the average. Whitley staff, in particular, have become very disillusioned.
    The Secretary of State has the following questions to answer. First, can pay settlements be adjusted and cost improvements contrived, as far as he requires them to be, without harming patient services still further? If not, will he provide additional resources to maintain growth? Secondly, is he satisfied that the NHS management board's new accounting framework can properly assess, monitor and provide information about local value-for-money strategies? Thirdly, I ask what response he makes to Mr. Paige's reference in his letter of resignation to
    "the different perspectives, priorities, objectives and restraints of Ministers and the Chairman of the Management Board".
    Fourthly, how is he facing up to the problem—which he and his predecessor embraced wholeheartedly—of the growing cost to community care of those patients discharged from long-stay hospitals and the effects of that both on NHS and local authority expenditure? The problem affects every region, large city and local authority. What is the answer to the question? The Select Committee has referred to it, but we have not had a satisfactory answer. Fifthly, it is generally agreed that we need 2 per cent. growth per annum. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether that will happen?
    My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred to the Institute of Psychiatry. The Minister will have read the letter that appeared in The Times on 27 May from Professor Griffith Edwards who runs an important and internationally known alcohol abuse clinic at the Maudsley hospital. The Minister will know exactly what was said in the letter signed by various consultants, some of whom are acting as advisers to the Select Committee in its inquiry into the prison medical service. We hope that in the not-too-distant future the results of the inquiry will be published. I can promise the Minister that the inquiry will show some serious problems that need urgent attention. I do not suppose that that will surprise him.
    The consultants at the Institute of Psychiatry also wrote to me on the same day as the letter appeared in The Times pointing out that the work they do concerns important areas that the Government have said require attention as a matter of priority. They referred to the aspects which I have mentioned—mental illness and mental handicap—as well as to drug and alcohol abuse and caring for the elderly. They stated:
    "the hospital's DHSS grant has failed to keep pace with inflation in recent years, and in consequence the hospital is underfunded by approximately £400,000 per annum and has
    786
    accumulated an £800,000 deficit. The health authority's initial plan to recover this deficit involved closing our … Alcoholism Treatment Unit (directed by Professor Griffith Edwards), substantial portions of the Child Psychiatry Department … a neurosurgical ward, and part of the Mental Handicap Unit. Because of the public outcry the Special Health Authority has postponed these closures".
    Unless the money is forthcoming, those closures will take place.
    The dean, who wrote to me, said that the second reason for the institute's difficulties arose from the progressive squeeze on universities. He said:
    "The Institute of Psychiatry receives approximately £2 million per annum from the University Grants Commission via London University"
    for its teaching responsibilities. It gets another £4 million from other sources, such as research councils, industry and charities. The institute's basic university income provides the salaries for those who seek the additional funds. The erosion of the university grant means that the institute is running a deficit of about £200,000 a year.
    The squeeze on academic salaries adds to the problem. The Institute of Psychiatry has already lost three professors and five clinical posts, which is a serious loss for a teaching hospital. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will paint a more convincing picture than the Minister for Health.
    5.21 pm
    Mr. Roy Galley: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) made a number of valid points but was rather selective in citing the statistics given to the Select Committee.
    Mrs. Renée Short: One always has to select such statistics.
    Mr. Galley: Of course, but by selecting statistics one can slant the argument in a particular direction. The hon. Lady did not fully recognise the enormous growth in resources and the improvements in the family practitioner service which inevitably have caused problems for expenditure on hospitals. She did not recognise that the increased pay for NHS staff, especially nurses and doctors, has imposed pressure on NHS resources, or that the squeeze on NHS revenue, pay and capital between 1974 and 1979 has caused a backlog which has since had to be cleared.
    The implication of the Opposition's motion, which was so vividly portrayed by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), is that the big conurbations, which already attract disproportionately large resources across so many aspects of Government activity, should receive further preferential treatment. One accepts that there are problems, but, in round terms, that proposal should rightly be resented in smaller provincial towns. The previously bipartisan policy of the fairer distribution of resources has meant improvements in health facilities for smaller towns, such as the one that I represent. The Calderdale area health authority has still not reached its target under the resource allocation working party formula but has improved its position by more than 2 per cent. in the past five or six years. That has meant £500,000 extra to provide services. It is right and fair that there should be such an improvement in the provinces where there has been inadequate resourcing. The aim of the Opposition's motion is effectively to reverse that trend.
    The Opposition may object to what I have said and say that that is not what they want and that they want to

    787
    increase resources across the board—plucking funds, as ever, from the magical money tree. The unit costs of providing services in these urban areas often exceed the unit costs in smaller, more efficient hospitals. London receives a disproportionate share of resources for its population and, even taking account of London weighting, unit costs for the provision of particular items of service can be as much as 30 per cent. higher than in other parts of the country. In effect, the Opposition's motion is saying that the provinces should subsidise London and the other conurbations underwriting and ingraining those inefficiencies. [HON. MEMBERS: -No."] Of course there are particular problems, but, in general terms, that is what the motion seeks to do.
    There will be additional resources during this financial year. Inflation will be significantly lower than projected. Oil prices have been significantly reduced. Those facts as well as prudent management in parts of the Health Service mean that there will be money for considerable expansion on a national basis. It may not affect every area, but in certain parts of the country there will be scope for considerable increases in expenditure. No doubt, given all the information that we have received in this debate, there is a case for a modest and carefully allocated increase in resources and for looking again at the formulae for teaching hospitals. No doubt, there are grounds for gearing allocations to take account of socio-economic factors as well as population changes. No doubt, the numbers of people who are working, but not necessarily living, in the cities is a relevant factor which present policies do not fully recognise. But essentially the problem is one of management. Some parts of the NHS are better managed than others. All of it could be better managed. We must not retreat from encouraging that improved management and stopping the subsidy of inefficiency.
    When some services can be provided by the private sector at half' the cost of the NHS, we cannot give up the fight for better management and more efficiency. When one hospital, for example, loses, as a result of pilfering, 25 per cent. of its linen budget each year, we cannot give up. When, for ideological reasons, health authorities lose the taxpayers' money by failing to co-operate with the private sector, we cannot give in to inefficiency.
    The Opposition pretend that better management is not caring. They claim that inefficiency is caring. It is the reverse. The efficient use of resources—I do not claim that all the resources are used efficiently—allows more people to be treated, which means more, not less, caring. We do not want a health service that will be judged to be successful by the number of sick people in beds. We want one where success means more well people.
    Ultimately, I become angry about the Opposition's two-faced hypocrisy. They are seeking to make political capital from people's suffering. The Labour Government cut the hospital building programme by one third, and for two consecutive years cut revenue spending. They did not curtail the rate of growth; they cut expenditure. I became angry that some consultants and some people in organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing aid and abet the Opposition when part of the problem is that they have had such a good deal, in terms of pay and conditions, from this Government, in stark contrast to the shabby way in which they were treated by the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Tony Banks rose—
    Mr. Galley: The struggle for better management will be long and arduous.
    Mr. Pavitt rose—
    Mr. Galley: We need to stop the Health Service from being a political football and to allow managers to manage in a caring way. Radical steps may well be needed to achieve that. We should consider putting the NHS at one remove from political control and creating a quasi-nationalised industry concept. We need the NHS management board to manage We should look again at health authorities and community health councils, replacing them with a more effective consumer voice.
    Parliament and Government must be involved in health, but the day-to-day management of such a vast service with 1 million employees cannot be controlled centrally by Government. It needs to be effectively devolved with a more independent supervisory national board. Government and Parliament should determine the policies and the principles of the Health Service but leave the daily management to Health Service professionals. That concept has worked well with other services provided on a national basis and it can work with health.
    Of course, funding would be a problem if independence was to be established. We would need to consider a devolved structure with perhaps a system of regional health charges on the lines of the community charges which are now proposed, so that people would know what they were paying for health and could monitor service improvements in direct relation to the increased taxation. There would always need to be an element of central funding to take account of special health authorities, medical education, specific circumstances and problems, but management and funding need to be devolved, in the interests of the patients in the hospitals, if our already successful Health Service is to meet successfully the challenges of the future. One of the greatest challenges to the Government during the next few years will be to take people's health and children's education out of the forefront of the political arena within the principles set down by Parliament.
    5.31 pm
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley). If I am correct in saying that he is the chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench committee on health, it augurs ill for the future development of Conservative policy on health. If the thoughts that the hon. Gentleman expressed this evening are typical of the thoughts and the new development of ideas in Conservative circles and in the Back-Bench committee, I fear for the future of the Health Service. I could devote my entire speech to responding to the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I had better resist that temptation.
    I shall recommend to my Liberal and SDP colleagues that they should support the principal motion tabled by the leader of the Labour party. We are discussing an Opposite motion which contains the main elements of health care that worry us. Care for everyone, training problems for doctors and nurses, conditions in which staff work, research facilities and the promotion of good health are issues which also give us cause for anxiety.
    I was deeply impressed by the speech made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I

    789
    have rarely heard such a powerful exposition of local problems that demonstrated the challenges that face us nationally. The Government are obliged to take account of everything said by a right hon. Member of such experience and substance in the House.
    I support the Conservative amendment to the motion in so far as it refers to the dedication of the staff. The staff of the National Health Service are under a pressure which they have never experienced before. I had direct experience of that pressure when I took up a challenge offered by the Nursing Standard to be a porter in an accident emergency unit in Whipps Cross hospital earlier this year. I spent a 10-hour night shift there and learnt a great deal about the pressure under which the staff operate. I hope that the Government will bring forward the review of the resource allocation formula. I hope that changes will be implemented soon after the review reports to the Department later this year.
    I did not agree with the hon. Member for Halifax that money should be removed from London to fund the provinces. The difficulties in big city hospitals are caused by matters such as the extent of social deprivation, the teaching costs inevitably incurred in the big teaching hospitals and the cross-regional and cross-district flows. When the Minister for Health referred to the RAWP review, he mentioned those problems specifically. I hope that those matters will be urgently considered and urgently acted upon when the Minister receives the report.
    The quality of care in the big city hospitals is under threat. The statistics that the Government frequently throw from the Dispatch Box do not face up to the difficulties of achieving and maintaining the quality of care. The statistics may show increased throughput of patients, but the statistics on the use of beds do not refer to readmissions and the damage that is often caused to patients by being chucked out of wards earlier than their medical condition would warrant.
    I read an article in The Guardian this morning about waiting lists, which said that DHSS Ministers are to put up a stiff fight to try to get some extra resources from the Treasury to reduce the appalling level of waiting lists across the country and particularly in our big city hospitals. I would give the Minister for Health every support to try to obtain extra resources, not just as a cynical political guise to get him through a general election but because the need is there, and evident to all.
    Dr. John Marek: I wish to follow the hon. Gentleman's point about readmissions. There may be extra readmissions simply because of discharges made prematurely. The Minister said that the figures that he has seen did not lead him to consider the figures he was quoting differently. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be good for the public and for the House to know what figures the Minister was considering which led him to make that comment earlier this afternoon?
    Mr. Kirkwood: I shall take up that helpful intervention. I ask the Minister to take notice of that point, take it back to his Department and consider writing to hon. Members who are interested in those matters, such as myself and the hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and give us the evidence used in the Minister for Health's statement earlier this evening.
    790
    I shall make some comments about the Liberal party's attitude to helping the plight of the big city hospitals. First, we must start—the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made a powerful argument for this at the beginning of his speech — by devoting an increased proportion of our gross domestic product to the Health Service. Having considered the issues, I believe that an annual increase of at least 2 per cent. is required just to stand still in terms of funding the health budget. The Liberal party would commit itself to attempt that, as far as it was possible to do so.
    In terms of the problems that exist, we would try to give more emphasis to the prevention of illness and community care. If more was spent on prevention and on community care, much of the pressure would be removed from the big city hospitals. Even such things as general practitioner hospitals in big cities and in rural areas could be used to give general practitioners the opportunity to practise in some of those smaller hospitals which Conservative Members are so keen to close in order to put people into huge palaces of high technology medical care. More could be done to save some of those general practitioner hospitals to keep some of our elderly people in acute beds closer to their families. An example of that exists in the border region where the Government are putting in a new district general hospital, which is small by national standards, but we are in the process, on a supposedly temporary basis, of closing Sekirk cottage hospital in the surrounding area as a consequence of lack of finance.
    The problems of big city hospitals could be alleviated substantially by making proper and prudent use of some of the smaller hospitals and using them as general practitioner beds.
    With regard to London, I underline what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said about the Maudsley. That is an absolute litmus test of the Government's attitude towards those hospitals and institutions which have not only a national but an international reputation. The Maudsley does valuable work in the prevention of alcohol problems, drug abuse and adolescent problems. It is a litmus test of how the Government will proceed in future. If the Government do not provide the resources that that institution and others like it need, how will they manage to survive the financial pressures that they are under?
    In terms of the problems outside London, I understand that the latest estimate is that about £1·7 billion needs to be spent on the fabric of our big city hospitals. One could not expect to achieve such a capital expenditure programme during one Parliament. However, I get the impression that the capital allocations mentioned this evening by the Minister do not meet the problems. They ignore the difficult new pressures, including AIDS, which face the institutions in our big cities.
    The Government have not devoted anything like enough money to research into the prevention and cure of AIDS, nor have they devoted enough money to the provision of the intensive nursing facilities that are required to deal with the effects of the virus. Not only do the staff at St. Mary's hospital at Paddington deserve much more recognition for their dedication and their work; they require extra resources.
    The problems are enormous and are exacerbated by poor housing and bad social conditions. The method of funding must be changed to take account of the underlying important root causes of illness and poor health, especially

    791
    as they affect the elderly. The provincial services must be allowed to improve, but not at the expense of the major London teaching hospitals. many of which carry out important research into the prevention of disease. The staff must be properly motivated and rewarded for their dedication. I was especially upset to hear the hon. Member for Halifax say that nurses are well rewarded. If one visited any hospital and suggested that this was the case, especially against the background of the past two years—
    Mr. Galley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Kirkwood: No, I do not have time.
    Last year, the nurses' long overdue and meagre increase was phased, and this year three months' worth of their increase was sliced off the top. If the hon. Gentleman considers that to be proper treatment, he and I define the phrase differently.
    The aging population, increasing specialisation in surgery, new viruses such as AIDS, the abuse of heroin and alcohol, and tobacco-related diseases have created demands on our big city hospitals. Community care, prevention and education also create extra demands for resources. The need for these resources is urgent, and action is necessary now — or the hospital system may collapse.
    5.42 pm
    Mr. Rob Hayward: First, I should take up a comment made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwoocl). I was surprised that he did not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) in comparing nurses' real take-home pay. My hon. Friend did not refer to this year's award. He compared their real take-home pay under the Labour Government with the current position.
    It is not surprising that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) did not refer to the achievements or failures of the Labour Government. He was not a Member of Parliament at the time and did not, therefore, have to suffer the tidal wave of complaints, which some Opposition Members may recall, from constituents because the Labour Government cut the Health Service.
    I wish to quote the Labour Member of the European Parliament who represents Greater Manchester, North who wrote in her diary:
    "All things bright and beautiful, All projects great and small, All things wise and wonderful, Denis Healey CUTS them all. Healey cuts the Old Age Pension, Although he cuts by stealth, And when he looks for savings, Healey cuts the National Health."
    The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) made a series of calculations which bear careful consideration because inflation can be calculated differently for different areas of the economy. The hon. Lady came to the conclusion that in the past three years there has been a standstill in expenditure on the National Health Service. A Labour Member's calculations have thus laid to rest her party's accusations that there have been cuts in the NHS. The word was "standstill", not "cuts". I disagree with some of her calculations, but at least she made them logically and carefully.
    As far as I can recall, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras also rewrote history in the House. He was the
    792
    first Labour Member who made any reference to or acknowledgement of the winter of discontent of 1978–79. It is worth considering hospital waiting lists, which the hon. Gentleman dealt with in substantial detail. He tried to cover up the changes in hospital waiting lists. The figures that he used were provided in a written answer of 18 April at columns 536–37. The latest hospital waiting list is 674,000 people. When we replaced the Labour Government in 1979, they left a waiting list of 752,000 people. Therefore, according to those statistics, the Government have reduced it by about 80,000. The hon. Gentleman made a series of calculations claiming them to be fiddled figures. In 1974, the Labour Government inherited a hospital waiting list of 508,000. They managed to add 50 per cent. to the waiting list in their five years of government.
    Mr. Pavitt: The hon. Gentleman forgets the consultants' strike of 1974 and the junior hospital doctors' strike of 1975. The increase in the figures was due to the backlog caused by the strikes. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the winter of discontent, but when the doctors went on strike no one mentioned it. The Tory party supported the doctors.
    Mr. Hayward: That intervention was absolutely fascinating, because—
    Mr. Robert Wareing: It was truthful.
    Mr. Hayward: It was not truthful. There was a reference to the dispute of 1974. In December 1973 the waiting list was 508,000, in June 1974 it was 508,000, and in December 1974 it was 517,000. That first dispute, which the hon. Gentleman tried to identify as one cause of the increase, had no impact on the figures. The Labour Government managed to increase hospital waiting lists during a period without disputes. When they had the opportunity to run the NHS as efficiently as possible. they increased hospital waiting lists by almost 25 per cent. That was the Labour party's achievement, which we inherited. They now try to massage the figures to suggest that we have not reduced the waiting lists.
    The latest figure is 661,000. There has been a further progressive decrease in waiting lists—
    Dr. Marek: They have been going up.
    Mr. Hayward: The hon. Gentleman intervenes from a sedentary position with the comment, "They have been going up." The figures given to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, which he did not challenge in his speech, show that for each half year since 1983 there has been a decline in hospital waiting lists.
    Dr. Marek: If the hon. Gentleman read the figures for the past four half-yearly periods, he would see that waiting lists have been increasing. It is all very well to take selective figures at certain periods, but the special circumstances explain them. The net effect since the Government took office is that waiting lists have increased.
    Mr. Hayward: The waiting list went from 752,000 in March 1979 to 674,000 in March 1985. It is a fascinating juggling of figures. I wonder where the hon. Gentleman obtained his degree if that is what he calls "going up." By anyone's calculations, it is a reduction of 80,000.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras attempted to give me a geography lesson on Bristol. I wish

    793
    he had not tried. I intervened and queried the issue of the hospital waiting lists. He said that I should know that three health authorities cover Bristol. I am well aware of that and I can name them—Southmead, Frenchay and Bristol and Weston. When he produced his cumulative figure, he failed to identify the fact that they cover not only Bristol but five other parliamentary constituencies.
    The hon. Gentleman went on to mention Wendover hospital which was closed three years ago. He said that the Government are trying to close it, so he is obviously not aware of the fact that it has already been closed. That hospital is not even in Bristol; it is in Kingswood. It is outside the city to which he thought he was referring.
    Even if the waiting lists for Bristol and Frenchay are combined, which would cover most of the city, the totals have gone down. The investment in the health authority is visible for anyone to see. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) made an intervention, if the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) can remember. The right hon. Gentleman referred to investment in the Bristol Royal infirmary and the Bristol eye hospital, both of which are university teaching hospitals, in which several million pounds have been invested. I believe that there is £4 million of investment in the Bristol eye hospital. Frenchay hospital, which is the other major general hospital on the eastern side of the city, has just announced phase one of a redevelopment programme, involving investment of £6 million, which will serve the eastern side of the city. There are not only those investments, but the continuing construction of the Weston hospital, which is a major new general hospital, and investments in smaller projects such as—
    Dr. Marek: In The Guardian on 3 June 1986 there was an article which began:
    "Most medical schools face budget deficits of between 2 and 11 per cent next year because of Government cuts, the British Medical Association said yesterday."
    If that is the case and the hon. Gentleman's area is not having those cuts, I suggest that it is at the expense of even greater cuts almost everwhere else in the country.
    Mr. Hayward: I was referring to capital expenditure, which was a point made in the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. The hon. Gentleman attempted to deny that capital expenditure was taking place. I was identifying investments of substantial size within Bristol and the immediate area.
    If one looks at smaller projects, there are investments in major health centres, such as Cadbury Heath, and a new ambulance station at Sandwell. Projects of that type are going on all the time and are part of a major improvement in the Health Service which did not take place under the previous Labour Government.
    I should like to raise one or two specific points which relate to my constituency. We have heard a number of contributions relating, quite reasonably, to the problems of the resource allocation working party. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) identified extremely well the problems faced by the provinces. We all know, if we are outside the main home counties, that there has been a gross imbalance, and it is not right that that should continue. It may be that RAWP has to be looked at to ensure that some of the anomalies identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old
    794
    Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) do not continue. However, it is not right that a constituent of mine can be told that he has to wait between 12 and 18 months for a heart bypass operation when, if he were in London, he would have to wait for only three months. We cannot continue to accept that.
    Mr. Tony Banks: How long does the hon. Gentleman want him to wait?
    Mr. Hayward: I would not want him to wait at all. There is a regional imbalance which we must recognise and resolve.
    I deal now with expenditure in terms of management. There have been cases identified of odd or unnecessarily high expenditure. References have been made to linen contracts, catering contracts, and so on. People are still being asked to cut their services and to reduce the number of hours worked. At the same time they are asked what design of Laura Ashley wallpaper they should have in the wards around them. That is a gross misdirection of money, and we should address ourselves to such issues.
    There is no doubt that the recent decision on nurses' pay has had a serious impact on morale. The award was intended to be over a full year. I think that all nurses and hon. Members of both sides will be extremely disappointed that it has not proved possible to make that award for the full year. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax said, the overall terms and conditions are improving and should continue to be improved.
    5.55 pm
    Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I believe that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) spoke for every hon. Member. Anyone who has spent any time in the House can recall in some form or another the problems that he enunciated. I pay that tribute to him. It is the first time in 22 years that I have heard him make a constituency speech, and he spoke for hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    In his opening speech the Minister placed great stress on the fact that they have reduced the rate of perinatal mortality and handicap. Hon. Members who have been here for some time will know that I fought that battle about 12 years ago. I take no great credit for it. It was brought to my notice by the Spastics Society which felt that, although it was caring for children with cerebral palsy, it should try to do something about prevention. James Loring of the Spastics Society started the campaign, and I suppose that I was the House of Commons postman. I delivered the parliamentary questions with the help of people such as Mary Holland, who is now the researcher for MENCAP, and Peter Mitchell, who is now the researcher for the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. People gradually became aware of the problem. If one read all the reports on perinatal care and the prevention of disability from 1920, one would swear that the same man wrote every conclusion. The one thing that was common to them all was the need of special baby care units.
    The perinatal mortality rate is down, but the Minister should not take too much credit for it because the campaign was started long ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) chaired the Select Committee which looked into neonatal care. One of the strange things that happened was that the

    795
    Select Committee was allowed to take its evidence through from one Parliament to another. The Committee reported in 1979 and made the same observation — that we needed special baby care units and minimum standards of maternity care.
    If the Minister wants to lake credit for the decline in perinatal mortality, he must also take responsibility for the omissions. If special baby care units reduce perinatal mortality and, above all, reduce baby disabilities, then, in the long run, the Minister can save money. Imagine my feelings when I received a letter from two eminent pediatricians in my constituency at the Hope teaching hospital, men for whom I have the highest regard and who have great dedication, which said:
    "In view of the Region's inability to support the modest capital development, we are unwilling to continue to accept the pressures which the provision of a Regional Neonatal Service entails and in the absence of a firm and early starting date for the proposed expansion, will be ceasing to accept neonatal referrals as of 1 July 1986."
    If the Minister wants the credit he must face the reality. There is not a large sum of money involved and, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said when he talked about the problems of his constituency, that can be multiplied up and down the country. Special baby care units will reduce perinatal mortality and disability. In the short run, they will save considerable sums. If the Minister wants credit, he can have it. However, with the credit he must accept the responsibilty for Hope hospital unit and all the others involved.
    Mr. Favell: Is it not a fact that as facilities improve elsewhere in the region, for example in my district of Stockport, there will be less demand for the excellent services given at Hope? Consequently, people will not come from Stockport to Hope, and there will be less demand there. Should not people cut back at Hope so that we can spread resources elsewhere?
    Mr. Carter-Jones: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. A special baby care unit cares for those in urgent need. One does not need a large multiplication of units. The units should be spread at reasonable distances so that the babies can be brought in quickly. If I had my way, part of the Royal Air Force helicopter training exercise would be to bring pregnant mothers quickly from distant places to the units. That is the key. We want more special baby care units, but they should be distributed so that they can he easily reached. That is the point. Indeed, I understand that there may be; some developments in that area.
    There is a distinct possibility that other hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak, so I shall be brief. Let me ask a few questions. There was a specially leaked news item in today's edition of The Guardian—[Interruption.] I am delighted that David Hencke got it right without the Minister having to be consulted.
    Under the allocation of money to the Manchester area, and as Salford has teaching hospitals, will money be supplied to the Salford district health authority?
    Ministers have given us a considerable lecture on Griffiths. Administrators from the outside world can bring great quality and skill to hospitals. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup had a thing or two to say about that. Will the Minister explain to hon. Members who represent constituencies in the north-west why the Department of Health and Social Security auditor has discovered that millions of pounds have not been spent on
    796
    treating patients, paying nurses or looking after doctors, but have been wasted on buying a computer? The documents relating to the bids have not been discovered, according to up-to-date information from today's edition of the Daily Telegraph.
    If people want to talk about care in the community, they should not pay lip service to it. If rehabilitation can be and is properly practised, they should make sure that those who are rehabilitated are not returned to the conditions that caused their ill health or suffering.
    We talk about joint funding. This matter has been raised time and again with the Department. Mentally ill people from Prestwich hospital cannot be returned to the community because there are no facilities for them. That problem should be resolved. If we pay lip service to the concept of returning them to the community, but do not do so, that is no reason for running down the hospitals in which they have to stay. That should be borne in mind. If we are efficient in rehabilitating the elderly, as we are at Ladywell hospital in my constituency, we should not return them to the homes and conditions that caused the decline in their health.
    I make one final plea for the regions. The Minister would do us all a favour if he had words with the Department of Education and Science about the way in which limited resources for the Medical Research Council are distributed. We are not morons in the outstations. All talent does not lie south of Cambridge, yet the Medical Research Council, in allocating its resources, employs about 1,500 people south of Cambridge and 150 north of it. When I draw the line north of Cambridge, as a former RAF navigator, I can swing it sharply down to hit the coast somewhere near Bournemouth, so one can see that 1,500 researchers are employed by the M RC in the area on the line from Bournemouth to Cambridge whereas the rest of England has 150.
    I ask the Minister to have discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science to find out whether there can be a fairer allocation to the inner city areas and teaching hospitals in the north-west, the north-east, the midlands and the south-west.
    6.5 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) may have reservations about committing himself, when he is not well, to a service run by the Royal Air Force, but I am delighted to follow an hon. Member—the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones)—whose aspiration is that large numbers of babies should begin their lives thanks to the benevolence of the RAF.
    The public should understand some of the statistics that are bandied about in the House. What my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health said about the proportion of the gross domestic product devoted to the NHS having increased sharply since the Government came to office is not only true, but should be understood. The amount of money being spent on the NHS in real terms has also increased sharply since the Government came to office. Those are important refutations of the campaign of misrepresentation which the Opposition have sought to spread over the country to denigrate the Government's achievements. But, at the end of the day, the public will not be very interested in statistics. They will be interested

    797
    in the realisation that the problems of the NHS are not just of the past so many years, but were endemic from the day the NHS was brought into being.
    The real problem is that, out of 1,000 people, about 750 will show a symptom, and of them 250 may go to a doctor. Of that 250, about 10 may get into a hospital, and of that 10 one may end up in a teaching hospital. Yet it is the teaching hospitals, looking after that minute proportion of patients, which still dominate the NHS and the sympathy of the public.
    The 15 teaching hospitals in London were all built within a cab ride of Harley street. That mix of interests persists and still distorts NHS provision. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary whether the time has come for a serious look at whether the persistence with the special teaching districts should now be done away with.
    I spent 12 years of my life working in Health Service administration and teaching in Scotland. There are no special teaching districts in Scotland. The Scots took a decision from the beginning that the NHS in Scotland would benefit greatly from the inclusion of those centres of excellence in the general body of the NHS. The time has come to look seriously at whether the continuance of those extraordinary survivors is to the benefit of the NHS as a whole. I want to see centres of excellence elsewhere in the country. It is wrong to allow the great consultants' dependency on their private practices to slow down or thwart the transfer of teaching from the great cities to places where people live now.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was grossly unfair to the Government in much of what he said. However, he was absolutely correct on one point: where there are modern, up-to-date facilities of the highest standard, it is lunacy to insist that very expensive technology should be placed in Victorian hospitals where standards of cleanliness make it more dangerous to go into hospital than to remain outside. We want centres of excellence in modern facilities in other places spread around the country. If the facilities were placed where it was convenient not for the consultants — as they are presently organised — but for the patients, the consultants would soon move to the equipment rather than the people to the consultants.
    Why should the Medway health district—one of the health districts in my constituency—which still has only 77·2 per cent. of its entitlement under RAWP, despite the Government's real assistance to the district, lose £3 million a year ferrying patients from Medway to London, through heavy traffic, to receive treatment which ought to be available in the district and which the district is keen to provide?
    It is bad economics, bad health care and bad policy for people to be treated in high-cost hospitals, in densely populated areas, when they could be perfectly well treated in places where accommodation and bed costs are cheaper and where the standard of living of the staff would be higher. I am in favour of a review of RAWP and I support the Government's amendment. However, that review should not under-estimate the facts. Medway's population is 326,000 and it received £42·9 million this year. Lewisham and North Southwark has a population of 318,000 but it will receive £101 million this year.
    It is a grave disservice to the National Health Service for people to bandy about sums of money to imply that
    798
    we are damaging the Health Service. We are beginning slowly to move facilities to where people live now. My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Mrs. Fenner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) will support me on that issue. However, in this I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and other hon. Members were correct: that there comes a time when re-cutting the cloth may provide a more fashionable garment; it also provides a very short garment. We must now try to close the gap between the proportion of gross domestic product spent on health by many of our overseas competitors and the proportion spent here. It is a great credit to the Government that we spend so much more than we used to spend, but we must spend more.
    Finally, there is in the National Health Service, as there is in education or the social services, a real problem of presentation in public debate.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman means that people do not believe him.
    Mr. Rowe: I do not suppose that people would believe the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), whether he were speaking on his feet or from a sedentary position.
    I expect that all hon. Members know of consultants who are on nine elevenths contracts but who put in fewer hours than that and use their juniors to cover for them. We all know of general practitioners who work perfunctorily or who issue certificates or prescriptions irresponsibly. We all know that there is no establishment more tightly knit or more protective of its powers of patronage than the medical establishment. Yet when Governments, as the Government have courageously begun to do, begin to move against these abuses, the robbery of the public—
    Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman is so impressed by the Government's moves against fiddling by consultants, does he approve of the change in the consultants' contracts which used to give them a 10 per cent. bonus for working 100 per cent. of their time in the National Health Service but which now gives the same bonus for working only 90 per cent. of their time in the Health Service?
    Mr. Rowe: I think that it is absurd to give anyone a bonus for honouring his contract.
    When we try to do something about abuse, it is not the villains who are put up to scream foul. The exemplary consultants and model GPs, of whom there are many, appear in the media to castigate the Government for interfering with the Health Service. As a result, every time that a change is mooted or a check on malpractice is introduced, the most conscientious, caring and manifestly admirable medical team is put up to argue against the alteration. By a sleight of hand, of which the medics are becoming increasingly the masters, they turn the argument into one of a devoted Health Service profession fighting for its life against a crude, unfeeling Government. That is balderdash in most cases. That is an attempt to con the public that any attempt by the Government to break open cosy cabals of incompetence is an assault on patient care.
    The Government's record with the Health Service shows that the service is safe in our hands. I also believe that a great deal more can be done. There should be more resources for the Health Service, but I want to ensure that

    799
    the increased resources do not go to bolster up Victorian distribution of resources when account should be taken of regions such as mine.
    6.17 pm
    Mr. David Young: On 27 January 1981, I had an Adjournment debate in which the former Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security conceded the argument for the necessity of concentrating the acute facilities in Bolton on one hospital site. It was estimated that the first phase of the hospital should start in 1984–85. Since then, the programme has consistently slipped. On 5 April this year, the regional planning team and the Bolton district team argued that a start could be made in 1988. However, within weeks, the programme was again held back for 18 months.
    I would like to describe that programme to the House. It is disgraceful for any Government to allow this state of affairs to continue. The programme involves the main base for acute treatment in Bolton. The programme called for 148 acute beds in phase 1. The hospital is based on an old poor law hospital, and much of the facility must be demolished before the new facility is built. Of the 148 beds requested, 54 will replace beds in wards that will have to be demolished.
    It was hoped that, with that provision, the children's facility would be allocated on one site and that was extremely necessary. It was also argued that the positioning of the accident and emergency unit on the same site as the medical emergency unit would use nursing power and medical resources to the best effect.
    At present there are no day beds on the main site. It was proposed that phase 1 should provide 17. It is an outstanding disgrace that there are no intensive care beds on the site of the main hospital in Bolton. Eight were to be provided under phase 1, which would still have been five fewer than the number required. Phase 1 also provided that, as six coronary care beds would be lost through demolition and other factors, eight such beds should be included. X-ray facilities are extemely important. Concern has been expressed by consultants and by the Health and Safety Executive about the facilities at Bolton. It is a disgrace that the chest X-ray machine dates from 1956 and cannot he maintained even by the manufacturers after December this year.
    Those are some of the problems that we have faced as a result of the holding back of the new facilities. An increasing worry is the lack of confidence among medical staff about whether phase 1 will ever take place. Consultants are being encouraged to leave the authority area due to lack of resources and facilities. Under phase 1 it was hoped to locate the department dealing with AIDS in buildings now occupied by the Bolton Royal Infirmary. At present, it is accommodated in the basement of a building leased from the local authority. The incidence of AIDS is increasing, especially in inner-city areas, and we are lucky to have people of reputation dealing with it in Bolton, but how can we attract consultants of stature if we fail to plough in the resources needed to maintain this essential service?
    The district authority told me this morning that, due to the 18-month delay on phase 1, necessary holding measures must include an ophthalmic theatre adjoining Kitchener ward at the royal infirmary at a cost of £80,000. That would normally have been encompassed in phase 1. The refurbishing of D block at Bolton general hospital
    800
    covering four wards will cost £600,000. There is also a need to create a dental laboratory. Without this we shall lose royal college registrar status and the ability to take postgraduate students. The total cost of holding operations necessitated by the delay is between £830,000 and £1 million. That is not good bookkeeping, even for a Government and a regional authority who seem to put money before patients. The essential point is not the increased amount spent but the amount required to be spent to meet need. Human suffering and medical need cannot be categorised in terms of a balance sheet.
    I challenge the Minister to come to Bolton with me and to meet the district health authority and the consultants. Let us have a little less talk in the House and a little more meeting of minds where it is required. I hope that the Minister and the regional authority will see fit to create a system in which those who allocated money to the National Health Service must say whether they are members of private health schemes, which seem to be milking the Health Service dry in Bolton and elsewhere.
    We are asking for health for the people of Bolton. Year after year we have been bottom of the regional allocations list. To judge from the Black report, Bolton is the best place to go if you want an early death. We require health for our people. I issue an outright challenge to the Minister to come to Bolton and defend his policy with the people who have to use the hospitals there, many of which are out-dated, lacking in facilities and with departments divided between two sites. We thought that we had convinced the previous Health Minister—now Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction—but the Government's appointees on the regional health authority clearly regard Bolton and its people as of no consequence. I hope that the Minister will accept this request on behalf of my constituents. Incidentally, the people of Bolton also elected two Tory Members. It might be in those Members' interests if the Minister came to Bolton and showed that he was not content merely to view our problems from afar.
    6.26 pm
    Mr. Tony Favell: The National Health Service involves three main interest groups. First, the Government—by courtesy of the taxpayer—provide the wherewithal. The second is the 1,250,000 people who are employed by the Health Service. Thirdly, and most important, there are the patients. We hear constantly from the Opposition about the crisis in the National Health Service, but for which of the three groups is there a crisis'? We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health that the vast majority of people — about nine tenths—are satisfied with the Health Service.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the advertisement on the front page of The Guardian today? It says:
    "You may well he waiting months— even years—for non-urgent treatment under the National Health Service. Simply because it is over-stretched and can't cope with the demands made upon it."
    That came from Health First, a private medical aid company.
    Mr. Favell: I heard about that advertisement, although I did not read it. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with that. I shall have something to say about waiting lists in due course.
    Some people are of course dissatisfied with the National Health Service, but they are very rarely

    801
    dissatisfied with the treatment that they receive. They are dissatisfied at having to wait for it. Waiting lists have been reduced since the Government came to power and since the winter of discontent, but there is still much to be done. More often that not, however, extra money is not the answer. There are wide variations in waiting lists between districts, often with identical resources. Why should that be? I shall return to that, too, later in my speech.
    Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman does not have that long.
    Mr. Favell: I have three or four minutes.
    If the patients do not recognise a crisis in the National Health Service, is there a crisis for the Government? There will be a crisis for the Government — I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health is listening—if we do not get our message right. We have a good message, and a good record since 1979. Even the Shadow Chancellor does not dispute that there are 58,000 more nurses, 10,000 more doctors and dentists, and 73,000 more in-patients and 3 million more out-patients being treated. That is all very good news. Moreover, spending has risen by one fifth since 1979.
    Mr. Banks: Why does the Prime Minister go private, then?
    Mr. Favell: I have mentioned the patients and the Government. What of the 1,250,000 employees? Are they satisfied? Clearly Mr. Victor Paige was not, because he resigned. Mr. Freddie Lucas, the central Birmingham district health authority general manager, resigned following his one and only report to his health authority because he had been rendered impotent by politically motivated pseudo-general managers. He listed a number of improvements which he wanted to make to the authority. He pointed out that there was an £80,000 taxi bill, that £52,000 was paid for 100 private telephone lines which bypassed the switchboards, that £500,000 was being spent on a sterile fluids production unit which had not been in use for two years, and that £5,500 was being spent on a mural. What was the result? He got the elbow.
    Many people in the NHS are absolutely appalled by such reports. They want to see, not waste, but money put to good use. They realise that, when money is wasted, lives are lost. Mr. Lucas also pointed out that a private company, admittedly an American company, which had to operate at a profit could build a psychiatric hospital at almost exactly half the cost which the health authority could, and give identical service. Dedicated people in the NHS are appalled at that news. They want money to be directed to saving patients' lives.
    It is a question not merely of spending more money, but of making better use of resources, and many people know that. Many people can contribute to saving resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) criticised consultants — and, indeed, many deserve criticism. They should examine exactly what they do. When they have a long waiting list, do they refer patients to colleagues who do not? Recently I came across two orthopaedic surgeons operating in the same district health authority, one of whom had a waiting list of almost a year and the other who had none whatever.
    Mr. Alex Fletcher: There may be a reason for that.
    Mr. Favell: There may be a reason, but the orthopaedic surgeon without a waiting list was highly popular with his patients, and highly unpopular with his colleagues.
    Do consultants consider referring patients to other parts of the region which have shorter waiting lists, as they are entitled to do? People can even go to Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher) knows, 25 per cent. more resources are available to the Scottish Office and the waiting lists are not so long in Scotland. Why should people not be referred there or to other parts of England?
    General practitioners should ensure that patients are referred to consultants who do not have long waiting lists, and when consultants have long waiting lists they should consider how much time they spend on committees, how often they attend conferences and how often they deliver papers.
    Are nursing sisters looking to see where savings can be made on wards? Do they find out whether there are empty beds? Are they ensuring that consultants make full use of the beds available, and that half of them are not standing empty? Do they ensure that nurses are not hanging around because consultants have not referred patients to beds as they should?
    Last week I visited a kidney dialysis unit in Carmarthen which is operated by private enterprise. The patients there were highly delighted and the district health authority was also highly delighted because the number of kidney patients going without treatment in Wales has been reduced substantially since that unit opened. The Government should also be delighted because those patients are being treated at £12,000 a year each, whereas in the Yorkshire regional health authority, for example, it costs £16,320 a year each.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Favell: No. I must finish in just two minutes.
    Why are those savings being achieved in the private sector and not in the NHS?
    Mr. Tony Banks: The private sector does not have the same costs.
    Mr. Favell: The reason is that the private sector minimises its administrative overheads and has flexible staffing patterns. The NHS should offer that sort of service. Then there would be no private sector to talk about and Opposition Members would have nothing to bleat about. Many people within the NHS, indeed the vast majority, wish to offer that sort of service. They know that saving money saves lives, as has been proved during the past two years by that wonderful kidney dialysis service introduced in Wales.
    The NHS exists for patients. It does not exist for those who work in it, as is recognised by 999 out of each 1,000 people who work there.
    6.34 pm
    Mr. Laurie Pavitt: In the presence of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), I should like to repeat what has been said on many occasions during his absence. On one historic occasion a voice below the Gangway said "Speak for Britain." The right hon. Gentleman need not have apologised for speaking about his constituency, because it reflected what is happening in almost all constituencies. The House is

    803
    grateful for his contribution which has been the most important in the debate so far. It epitomised the problem in all constituencies.
    To apply a commercial bureaucratic mind to the NHS is crass stupidity and complete nonsense. Neither the Minister nor the Department realise that there are interrelations between big city hospitals and others, between departments within hospitals, between medicine and surgery, and between community medicine and hospitals. The Department is compartmentalising each sector so that it is considered separately. As a result, all sectors, including teaching hospitals and their relationship with district general hospitals, are being eroded to such an extent that there is chaos on admissions.
    The rationalisation that is going on applies to industry, but not to the NHS. If a department or a ward in a teaching hospital or if a geriatric hospital is closed—in my constituency two are facing closure — it has an immediate effect on other hospitals. In industry one can close down two factories, sack some workers, produce fewer goods and make a profit. The object in the NHS is not merely to save money. One can save money only at patients' expense. At present health authorities are, in effect, selling furniture to pay the rent.
    I am eternally grateful to Westminster hospital because it excised cancers from my wife and from me. It is now under threat from the salami-slicing attitudes of this Administration. They do not close a hospital. A chunk of a hospital is closed and then another chunk is closed. Westminster has already lost ophthalmology. I envy the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, for when he was fighting for the Brook cardiac unit, I was fighting for cardiac surgery at Westminster. I wish that I had taken lessons from him, because he won and I lost. Cardiac surgery was closed to save £100,000 but it has not been saved. This year's figures show that that money has again been paid for Westminster patients treated elsewhere.
    The radiotherapy and oncology departments are now threatened with closure. That is the biggest nonsense under the sun. If those departments are closed, the hospital will close because patient diagnosis, haematology, pathology, diagnostic X-ray, general cancer surgery, and the department of medicine and nursing will be affected. I plead with the Minister to save those departments, especially as a new computerised cancer machine, costing £1,200,000, has just been installed. The concrete roof alone cost thousands. If that department is closed, what will he done with it? Will it be sold for scrap? That would be complete nonsense in terms of managerial efficiency.
    Outer city areas, such as Bexley, affect the teaching hospitals. Recently a patient from Bexley wanted emergency treatment. Thirteen London hospitals were asked to take the admission and the last one, St. Bartholomew's, was able to admit the case. There has been a rationalisation of acute beds, but, as acute beds are closed in one area, they must be provided elsewhere. If there are no beds, the big city hospitals must find beds for emergencies.
    There is a shortage of nurses. A number of letters from Hammersmith hospital and elsewhere has shown that acute beds are unoccupied, because of the shortage not of money but of nurses. I am sorry that I do not have more time to devote to that subject. The Middlesex hospital is likely to lose its nursing school and Bart's has 32 places for students which will be unfilled this year.
    804
    I know that the Minister never pays attention to newspaper reports, but will he deny the existence of a bonus for managers who close hospitals? Will he deny that the bonus rate for regional managers is £1,660 a year—5 per cent. of their salary—and for district managers £3,160 a year for closing hospitals? The Government may think that the NHS is safe in their hands, but I hope that when the Minister replies he will refute that and say that it is just newspaper talk. For the Government to pay a premium for shutting down the NHS is even bigger nonsense than most of the other things that they have been doing in recent years.
    6.40 pm
    Dr. John Marek: This has been art important debate, as has been evidenced by the number of hon. Members in the Chamber and by the number of those who have wanted to speak. I am sorry that several of my hon. Friends have been unable to make their important contributions to one of the vital aspects of the country's life.
    I do not have much time, but I want to mention one or two points which have emerged from the debate.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Take it all.
    Dr. Marek: It would not be fair to take it all.
    When the Minister replies, I would welcome it if he admitted that the 24 per cent. increase in money for the NHS is not what it seems and that there are differences between the NHS now and in 1979.
    The Minister for Health said that we were getting older as a nation, that medical techniques were developing, and that just to stand still the NHS must have extra finance and resources. However, it is a great pity that the Minister did not continue that list and talk about the Clegg award. Five or six years ago the Labour Government were heavily criticised by the Conservative party for making resources available to the NHS in order to lift the morale of its workers. We were heavily criticised for setting up the Clegg pay review body, whose recommendations had to be implemented by the Conservative party in government. Five years later we hear nothing of that. The Government subsume those increases and take credit for them. The Government would never have implemented those recommendations if the previous Labour Administration had not organised them.
    It is a great pity that the Minister said nothing about the huge increase in unemployment and the resulting extra sickness. I hope that next time he speaks he will put that right.
    It is a pity that the Minister did not say that the medical retail prices index is much higher than the ordinary retail prices index. At certain parts in his speech the Minister talked in cash terms. A few months ago Government figures showed that hospital spending would rise by 6·7 per cent. this year when inflation would be only 4·5 per cent. The Government made great play of that. What had to be forced out of them was that half of that money had to be found by the health authorities themselves from greater efficiency in the use of resources. What type of arithmetic is that? The Government say that they are providing extra finance, but through the back door health authorities have to provide part of that finance from their own resources by extra efficiency and savings. If the Government challenge that, let the Minister say so when he replies so that it is on the record.

    805
    It is true that over the past year hospital waiting lists have gone down, but there was a huge increase between March 1982 and September 1982. I have a chart, which clearly cannot go into Hansard, but it shows that there was a sharp narrow plateau of high waiting lists during the winter of discontent—no one would want to get away from that—but since 1982 waiting lists have on average reached an unparalleled high level. [Interruption.] I have the figures here and hon. Members can see the plateau.
    The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) tried to pretend, using three selective figures, that waiting lists were low, but let us look at the figures. I quote from a pamphlet entitled "Health Expenditure in the UK," published by the Office of Health Economics. Let us look at the waiting lists per available bed for the years from 1975. I shall not be selective; I shall read them year by year. They are 1·4, 1·5, 1·5, 1·7, 1·8, 1·7—that is in 1980, the first year of the Tory Administration — 1·7, 2·0, 1£·9 and 2 for 1984. Those calculations show a high plateau in recent years.
    What we can draw from that is that it is easy to prove one proposition or another with statistics. But the Government will never fool all the people all the time. My hon. Friends have given concrete examples of hospitals and wards that are closing and of patients who are being turfed out early. We have also heard that in responsible speeches from not one but many Conservative Members who are genuinely concerned about what is happening to the NHS.
    If Ministers came down from their office blocks at the Elephant and Castle and went into hospitals and spoke to some of the people within the NHS, a different story might emerge. The Government stand condemned on their handling of the NHS not only by the House but by the public. I urge the House to pass the motion that has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
    6.46 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I start with two points of agreement with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). First, it has been an important and interesting debate, and, secondly, it is important that Ministers with responsibility for health should visit hospitals. That is why I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health and I spend so much of our time visiting hospitals. My average at the moment is about three hospitals a week. I would be surprised if what we have heard this afternoon suggests that Labour Members visit hospitals.
    Certainly, we welcome the debate and I hope that the Opposition will continue to give up their Supply days so that we can have more debates on the NHS for the opportunity that that will give us to nail the lies that Labour Members trail around the country. I also welcome the opportunity that the debate gives for us to pay tribute yet again to those who recorded such an impressive list of achievements in the steady development and modernisation of our Health Service.
    It is entirely natural that parties in opposition should attack the Government's stewardship in most, if not all, areas of our national life. That is the stuff of democratic politics. It might even be expected of the Social
    806
    Democratic and Liberal parties, although it has been a particular feature of the debate that not for a second has a member of the Social Democratic party been present and no doubt that is something that they will explain to the electorate. But even for the Social Democratic and Liberal parties it has been more difficult to justify this sort of attack on an intellectual basis when their main, and, indeed, most would say their only, stock in trade since their existence has been to suggest that they have somehow discovered a magic elixir which lifts them above the mere sordid dogfight of party politics. However, the harsh realities have now broken in.
    I understand the sensitivity of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in the absence of his former hon. Friends, given the present state of relations. But now that they accept the realities of party politics, they can indulge in the sort of parliamentary politics that we have seen among Labour Members and attack the NHS. If those attacks are to have any validity, two requirements must be fulfilled. First, the Opposition must be able to show that the Health Service is in decline. This they have manifestly failed to do either in this debate or elsewhere, and they have been unable to do so because the Health Service is now treating far more patients more effectively than it has ever done before, with better funding and better management. Secondly, they would need to offer some evidence that they would be able to achieve greater progress should the Health Service ever again come under their control.
    Their record when in government both for the conduct of the economy and of the Health Service—and I refer to the record of the Labour party and the record of those absent friends the hon. Members of the Social Democratic party who cannot escape their share of responsibility for the failures before 1979—leaves no room for optimism. They would have to show that they have discovered policies which would create an even stronger economic recovery than has been achieved under this Government, and thus produce an economy which could divert still more resources than we are diverting to the National Health Service. For the Opposition to seek to make such claims would be an unusually sick joke even by the extraordinary standards of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his happy plans to increase public spending by no less than £24 billion.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister has already effectively reminded us of the sorry record when Labour and the present Social Democrat leadership were last in office. Health expenditure then represented only 5·3 per cent of the national income, whereas now it is 6 per cent.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister has not yet answered a single question.
    Mr. Whitney: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire spoke for 10 minutes demanding more expenditure and giving no answers. He spoke about the need to deal with AIDS and totally ignored our expenditure on that illness. Under the policies of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Social Democratic party when it sustained the Labour party in office 5·3 per cent. of the national income was spent on health care. We are spending 6 per cent. on health care. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that 6 per cent. is enough, how much does he suggest should be spent and how much will his party

    807
    produce? The policies advocated by the Opposition parties would take us straight back down the inflationary spiral from which we have so painfully but successfully recovered, and they would destroy all hope of funding the National Health Service in the way in which, no doubt, all of us wish to see it funded.
    Given such unconvincing Opposition parties, we must look for other and perhaps more substantial causes for the concern which undoubtedly exists among many people about the state of the National Health Service. Certainly there are pressures, most if not all of which are also being suffered by other countries. The acknowledgement of these pressures seemed to come as some surprise to the hon. Member for Wrexharn. My right hon. Friend the Minister made a point which we consistently recognise: that an ageing population makes greatly increased calls on the medical services. There is also the pressure of medical advance with its new and costly techniques which are providing great improvements in patient care.
    As services develop and expand, expectations and aspirations increase even faster, putting the Health Service under still more pressure. For example, total hip replacements in England increased from just over 18,000 in 1979 to 25,500 in 1984, and more elderly people now hope and expect to receive this treatment. Priority has been given to new treatments for life threatening diseases. For example, the number of patients receiving kidney treatment has risen from 5,400 in 1978 to over 11,000 in 1984 in the United Kingdom. Understandably, this creates new demands on doctors and patients alike and waiting lists grow for treatments which were simply not available a few years ago. Set against the overall decline in waiting lists, that is an impressive record.
    Most of the pressures are to be welcomed as manifestations of a successful Health Service, but they have to be set against financial realities from which no one can escape. That is a proposition which Opposition parties often seem determined to ignore or not to comprehend. There are also the pressures of pay settlements in the NHS. Like other employers, the Health Service needs to ensure that the pay of its staff is sufficient and rewards hard work and merit. The pay of nurses has risen by a third above the rate of inflation since 1979. Like other employers, the NHS cannot cast aside the responsibility for funding settlements and give carte blanche to the negotiators. But we have this year provided a 6·7 per cent. increase in NHS funding, against an inflation rate which is now much less than half that, and have just announced a further £50 million to help with the impact of the review bodies' pay award for doctors, nurses and others.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Whitney: I am sorry, I have no time.
    Mr. Kirkwood: If the Minister will not answer me, perhaps he will reply to his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
    Mr. Whitney: If the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will allow me, I shall go on to speak about that. Problems about funding health services are not specific to the United Kingdom, but we do have specific problems about the cities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, there are certainly problems, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health has recognised, in connection with the impact of the RAWP formula.
    808
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was unable to be in the Chamber during the speech of our hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) but I hope that he will consider the points that our hon. Friend made, because in the time available I shall not be able to go into those in detail. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent about the impact on the health services in the south-east Kent region are worthy of my right hon. Friend's consideration.
    The Government have accepted the need for a review of the operation of RAWP within the general framework of RAWP principles, but it is important to understand that we must continue to apply discipline. I recognise that some of the features that have developed in Bexley are unfortunate, but some of them have been coming for two or three years and some of them can be attributed to a failure to come to grips with the problem. Bexley's record and the record of other health authorities on competitive tendering suggests that more could be done.
    Mr. Heath: It is acknowledged in my hon. Friend's Department and outside that the services which I described in my constituency are way above the national average and have increased in efficiency. We are closing down the most modern facilities in the south of England. That is nonsense and what reason can my hon. Friend give for doing that?
    Mr. Whitney: The services are constantly being improved.
    Mr. Heath: They are being closed down.
    Mr. Whitney: The resources are constantly increasing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup should bear in mind the new facilities that are being created. If he does that, he will understand that Health Service resources are being wisely used. My right hon. Friend suggests that the 6·2 per cent. of GNP which we devote to Health Services should be increased to 8·5 per cent. That is the inference of what he said, and that would imply spending about £7 billion or £8 billion more.
    Nothing that I or my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health have said should be misrepresented or misunderstood as an assertion that the Government are satisfied' with the present state of the NHS. However, we take pride in the substantial real increases in resources that we have been able to devote and generate—
    Mr. Frank Haynes rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 254.

    Division No. 224]

    [7. pm

    AYES

    Abse, Leo

    Beith, A. J.

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Bell, Stuart

    Alton, David

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Anderson, Donald

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Ashton, Joe

    Blair, Anthony

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Boyes, Roland

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Barnett, Guy

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Barron, Kevin

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

    Beckett, Mrs Margaret

    Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

    809

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Lambie, David

    Buchan, Norman

    Lamond, James

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

    Leighton, Ronald

    Campbell, Ian

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    McCartney, Hugh

    Cartwright, John

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Clarke, Thomas

    McKelvey, William

    Clay, Robert

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Clelland, David Gordon

    McNamara, Kevin

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    McTaggart, Robert

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

    Madden, Max

    Cohen, Harry

    Marek, Dr John

    Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

    Martin, Michael

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Craigen, J. M.

    Maxton, John

    Crowther, Stan

    Meacher, Michael

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Meadowcroft, Michael

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Michie, William

    Dalyell, Tam

    Mikardo, Ian

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

    Nellist, David

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

    O'Brien, William

    Deakins, Eric

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Dixon, Donald

    Park, George

    Dobson, Frank

    Patchett, Terry

    Dormand, Jack

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Douglas, Dick

    Pendry, Tom

    Dubs, Alfred

    Penhaligon, David

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Pike, Peter

    Eadie, Alex

    Prescott, John

    Eastham, Ken

    Radice, Giles

    Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

    Randall, Stuart

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Fatchett, Derek

    Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Fisher, Mark

    Robertson, George

    Flannery, Martin

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Forrester, John

    Rogers, Allan

    Foster, Derek

    Rooker, J. W.

    Foulkes, George

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

    Fraser, J. (Norwood)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Rowlands, Ted

    Freud, Clement

    Ryman, John

    George, Bruce

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Gould, Bryan

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hamilton, James (M'well N)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

    Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

    Hancock, Michael

    Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Silkin, Rt Hon J.

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Snape, Peter

    Haynes, Frank

    Soley, Clive

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Spearing, Nigel

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Stott, Roger

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Strang, Gavin

    Home Robertson, John

    Straw, Jack

    Howells, Geraint

    Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

    Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

    Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Thorne, Stan (Preston)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

    Tinn, James

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Torney, Tom

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Wainwright, R.

    Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    John, Brynmor

    Wareing, Robert

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Weetch, Ken

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Welsh, Michael

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Kennedy, Charles

    Williams, Rt Hon A.

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Wilson, Gordon

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Winnick, David

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Woodall, Alec

    810

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Mr. John McWilliam and

    Mr. Chris Smith.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Hayward, Robert

    Alexander, Richard

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Henderson, Barry

    Ancram, Michael

    Hickmet, Richard

    Arnold, Tom

    Hicks, Robert

    Ashby, David

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Hill, James

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Hirst, Michael

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Baldry, Tony

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

    Best, Keith

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Irving, Charles

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Jessel, Toby

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Jones, Robert (Herts W)

    Budgen, Nick

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Burt, Alistair

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Butterfill, John

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Carlisle, John (Luton N)

    Key, Robert

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

    Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Cash, William

    Knowles, Michael

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Knox, David

    Chapman, Sydney

    Lamont, Norman

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Lang, Ian

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Latham, Michael

    Cope, John

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Couchman, James

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Dover, Den

    Lester, Jim

    Dunn, Robert

    Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

    Durant, Tony

    Lightbown, David

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Lilley, Peter

    Favell, Anthony

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Lord, Michael

    Fletcher, Alexander

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    McCrindle, Robert

    Forman, Nigel

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Fox, Marcus

    Maclean, David John

    Franks, Cecil

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Freeman, Roger

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Galley, Roy

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Madel, David

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Major, John

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Malone, Gerald

    Gow, Ian

    Maples, John

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Marland, Paul

    Greenway, Harry

    Marlow, Antony

    Gregory, Conal

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

    Mates, Michael

    Grist, Ian

    Mather, Carol

    Ground, Patrick

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Grylls, Michael

    Mayhew, Sir Patrick

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Hannam, John

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Hargreaves, Kenneth

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Harris, David

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Harvey, Robert

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

    Moate, Roger

    Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hawksley, Warren

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hayes, J.

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    811

    Mudd, David

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

    Murphy, Christopher

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Needham, Richard

    Squire, Robin

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Newton, Tony

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Steen, Anthony

    Norris, Steven

    Stern, Michael

    Onslow, Cranley

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Sumberg, David

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Pawsey, James

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Porter, Barry.

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Portillo, Michael

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Powley, John

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Price, Sir David

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Thurnham, Peter

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Raffan, Keith

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Trippier, David

    Rathbone, Tim

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Renton, Tim

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Waddington, David

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Walden, George

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Walker, Bill (T'side N)

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Wall. Sir Patrick

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Waller, Gary

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Walters, Dennis

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Ward, John

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Warren, Kenneth

    Ryder, Richard

    Watson, John

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Watts, John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Wheeler, John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Whitney, Raymond

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Shersby, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Silvester, Fred

    Wood, Timothy

    Sims, Roger

    Woodcock, Michael

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Speed, Keith

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Speller, Tony

    Mr. Francis Maude and

    Spencer, Derek

    Mr. Michael Neubert.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House commends the Government on the increased resources it has made available for the National Health Service; congratulates the dedicated Health Service staff for their improved performance in delivering high quality health care; reaffirms the principle of equality of access to health care underlying the Government's resource allocation policy; and endorses the Government's decision to review the Resource Allocation Working Party formula under which the allocation of revenue funds is determined.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir PAUL DEAN in the Chair]
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Sir Paul. We appreciate that, as always, the Chair has selected the amendments with great care, but is there any chance of debating amendment No. 47? The section referred to is the only one that deals with the common agricultural policy, and under section 25 of the Act there is a requirement on the Commission to bring forward proposals for a major change of the various funds, including agriculture funds. As that is a major issue, and there is to be no debate on any aspect of the CAP, despite the fact that it accounts for 70 per cent. of EEC' expenditure, could we discuss either amendment No. 17 tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) or amendment No. 47 tabled by me?
  That would provide us with the only opportunity to make any reference to the CAP'. As the proposal in article 23 of the Single European Act is fundamental, and instructs the Commission to make a major reappraisal of the CAP, a brief debate on that amendment would be helpful. I should make it clear that the amendments have been selected superbly. This is the only change that I would wish to make.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point or order, Sir Paul. I do not know whether you had the good fortune yesterday, as I did, to watch the tail end of the farming programme on television, but it revealed that the prognosis for agriculture is very gloomy indeed. I must support my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), because the farming community—and many of us have a lot of farms in our constituencies — would be somewhat outraged if this matter was not debated, as it is of great importance.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): I am sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means will wish to consider the points raised by the hon. Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). However, their points refer to matters that may arise later, and it is fairly unlikely that we shall reach that stage today. Nevertheless, I give an assurance, without any commitment, that the issue that they have raised will be considered.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Sir Paul. I wish to raise a lengthier but important point of order regarding the long title and the potential selection of amendments thereto. I understand that the long title has four objectives: first, to add certain provisions in the Single European Act to the European Communities Act 1972; secondly, to extend the powers of the court; thirdly, to enlarge retrospectively the functions of the European Parliament; and, fourthly, to "approve the Single European Act". May I therefore assume that,

  813
  apart from those objectives, the purpose of the Bill is to ratify the Single European Act treaty? Once Royal Assent is given, the House will be responsible for enacting any matter that is in the treaty but that is not being transferred into our domestic law by virtue of the Act.
  If the purpose of the Bill is partly to endorse the totality of the Single European Act treaty, its scope encompasses anything that is directly relevant to the treaty. In Committee, we shall have to bear in mind whether anything has emerged after Second Reading that should change the minds of hon. Members on Third Reading. Whether one should vote in favour of giving the Bill a Third Reading thus depends on one's views on the merits of the treaty. The first article in the Single European Act treaty refers to the solemn declaration of European unity which was passed in Stuttgart in 1983. Indeed, that appears in the objectives of the preamble. Its terms do not appear directly anywhere in the treaty, although it is mentioned in the first article. However, when the Single European Bill was passed, Ministers put their signature to a decision at The Hague. Indeed, I think that the Minister of State was one of the signatories. It brought into effect another international treaty, known as the decision of the Ministers. That is printed in appendix B to the report of the Select Committee, published today. That international agreement runs parallel with the solemn declaration of European unity. Any comparison of the text will show that one gives effect to the other.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) tabled amendment No. 50 in order to add that decision treaty to the list of treaties covered by the European Communities Act 1972. Given the nature of that Act and the importance of the treaty that the Minister signed, one would have thought that it was highly relevant to the debate, as it is part and parcel of the execution of the legislation under discussion.
  You have decided, Sir Paul, that the amendment should not be called at this stage. In view of the considerations that I have placed before you—I do not press my point too hard now—I ask you to examine what I have said. If my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) retables his amendment at another point in the Bill—perhaps at the end of clause 1, since it can sit at the end just as well as at the beginning — will you reconsider the selection of that amendment?
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. Since reference has been made to the Single European Act, may I inquire on a trivially simple point—is the Single European Act on the Table?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Yes, it is on the Table.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for giving me notice of his point of order so that I was able to consider it. I can assure him that when the First Deputy Chairman made his selection earlier in the day he considered the point and he was satisfied that amendment No. 50 was out of order because it is outside the scope of the Bill.
  With regard to the hon. Gentleman's final point, if the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) cares to table an amendment, it will be considered carefully. Again, I shall be surprised if we reach that stage this evening.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for that answer, Sir Paul. Perhaps you can help me once more. The point of order
  814
  that I raised was of considerable significance to the purpose of the Bill in approving the Single European Act. If you can confirm that that is one of the purposes of the Bill, because the Single European Act itself requires constitutional ratification by the relevant national organisations, surely anything which bears upon the merits of that Act, particularly its context, must be in order so that we can discuss the matter and thoroughly explore the merits of the treaty.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I shall not try to deal with a hypothetical case. If amendments are tabled, they will, of course, be considered by the Chairman in the normal way.
  Mr. William Cash: Further to the point of order, Sir Paul. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee report, which was published recently, states in paragraph 11:
  "Questions relating to the scope of the Bill, and consequently the admissibility of amendments at Committee and Report stage, are of course matters for the Chair in Committee and in the House."
  Am I right to infer that the reason for the non-selection of my amendment No. 48, which seeks to state
  "Nothing in this Act…shall derogate from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom"
  is that it is assumed that nothing in the Bill shall derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament? Does the fact that my amendment was not selected mean that there is no question of that sovereignty being impaired?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's amendment was not selected because it is outside the scope of the Bill and therefore out of order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to use his ingenuity when we discuss other amendments which have been selected for debate to make some of the comments that he was hoping to make on that amendment.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Further to the points of order, Sir Paul. In view of your ruling on the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), will references to the preamble, which has been shown to be of great importance and relevance in interpreting the Act by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report, be in order in relation to the amendments that have been selected?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: We had better see how we go. The selection is generous and covers a wide range of issues. I shall listen carefully to the debate and I shall allow the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members to say anything which is in order.
  Mr. Marlow: Further to the point of of order, Sir Paul. I hope that my point of order will accelerate our business. The House of Lords has said that the power of the United Kingdom Parliament will be weakened by the Single European Act. It is referred to as the "Final Act". Some of my hon. Friends are worried that it might be the final solution to the powers of this Parliament. There is one possible safeguard — the Luxumbourg compromise, or the right of Her Majesty's Ministers, supported by this Parliament, to veto matters outside the interests of the United Kingdom and on fundamental issues of national interest. We are not sure where we stand with the veto.
  The House of Lords Select Committee report believes that the Luxembourg compromise is not likely to be

  815
  affected under the terms of the Single European Act. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister believes that it will be, and the Minister believes that the Luxembourg compromise is unchanged by the Act.
  If we were persuaded by a statement from the Minister that the Luxembourg compromise was still healthy and hearty and could he used by Her Majesty's Government, it would make it much easier when considering later amendments to allay the concern felt by many hon. Members.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has already answered his own question. He said that he hoped that the Minister would be able to enlighten him. It is a matter for debate, not a matter of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. I am suggesting that the Luxembourg compromise would apply throughout. I do not know when the Minister will make her remarks, but she certainly will not make them before the debate has begun and perhaps not until we reach the third or fourth group of amendments, because she might believe her remarks to be more apposite later. If the House could have the benefit of her remarks and the opportunity for cross-examination at an early stage, many of the points that right hon. and hon. Members might like to make would be no longer necessary.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: This is a matter for the Minister, not for me.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: I have three separate points of order. I have given notice to the Chairman of Ways and Means of a point of order which I shall seek to make later, since it does not relate to the first group of amendments. I shall also wish to raise a point of order when we come to the second group of amendments. I shall not go into detail now but I shall wait until the appropriate time.
  I reinforce the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) about the need for an opportunity to debate article 23 of the Single European Act, which allows reference to the common agricultural policy and the structural fund. I realise that this matter is to be considered later, but it is important.
  I accept the Chair's wisdom and discretion in the selection of amendments. Some of the amendments relate to the declarations which are part of the Final Act but not part of the Single European Act. I am aware that the Single European Act is covered by the long title and that the Final Act is not. Some of the declarations are linked with clauses in the Single European Act. If we were to pass the Single European Act without the declarations, it would be like having a dog and leaving the tail behind. A dog without a tail is not a pleasant sight.
  If we did not embody in British law those declarations which are directly relevant and legally linked to articles in the Single European Act, we should do ourselves a disservice and an injustice. I shall give one example. On page 24 of the Single European Act it is stated:
  "At the time of signing this text, the Conference"—
  that is, the conference of Heads of Government—
  "adopted the declarations listed hereinafter and annexed to this Final Act."
  Declaration No. 4 applies to article 100A of the EEC treaty. That declaration reads:
  "In its proposals pursuant to Article 100A the Commission"—
  816
  that is, the EEC Commission—
  "shall give precedence to the use of the instrument of a directive if harmonization involves the amendment of legislative provisions in one or more Member States."
  That is a clear statement of the way in which the Community is proposing to proceed on a matter which will affect the law of Britain if the Single European Act is passed as a result of the Bill.
  I therefore put it to you, Sir Paul, that this matter should be considered again. I entirely appreciate that the declarations are not part of the Act and are not, therefore. prima facie covered by the long title. However, in view of the peculiar nature of this Single European Act and the fact that it is a dog with a tail that is outside it, I hope that further consideration will be given to that point.
  7.30 pm
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I gladly assure the hon. Gentleman, although without any commitment, that I am prepared to ensure that the points that he has raised are fully considered.
  I now propose to call amendment No. 1, with which are grouped amendments Nos. 4 and 38 and the Question that clause 2 stand part.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Sir Paul. You have indicated that the Question that clause 2 stand part is to be taken with the Questions on the other amendments that you mentioned by number. It is always unwise, Sir, to chance one's arm and say that any particular matter is unprecedented, but I think that I would be within the knowledge of the House in saying that it is unusual for the Chair to indicate in advance its intention not to allow a separate debate upon the Question that a clause stand part of a Bill.
  I appreciate that the Chair has unrestricted discretion to do that, and to do so without cause shown, but I submit that the Chair decides that after having heard the debate, and only when satisfied as a result of that debate that it would be superfluous to debate the Question that a certain clause stand part. I hope, Sir Paul, that you will suspend judgment on the Question that clause 2 stand part until you or other incombents of the Chair have had the opportunity to hear the debate upon the other amendments. There is another Question that it might be convenient to put now, which relates to the grouping of amendment No. 4 with amendments Nos. 1 and 38. I submit that the subject matter of amendment No. 4, although concerned, like the other amendments, with the proposed new courts of justice., is essentially different in that amendment No. 4 creates a power of delegated legislation in the Council of Ministers. Perhaps more accurately, it creates a power of delegated treaty-making in the Council of Ministers. That is a matter of principle that is separate from the decision whether one or more additional courts should be set up under the provisions to which amendments Nos. 1 and 38 relate.
  I submit that it would be advantageous and for the convenience of the Committee if it were permissible to take amendment No. 4 separately from the other amendments with which it is your proposal to group it.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order, which has enabled me to consider the matter.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, there is a connection between all the groupings, and having reconsidered the

  817
  matter I am not prepared to alter the selection. Of course, when we reach the appropriate time, if he wishes to have a separate vote on amendment No. 4 that will be sympathetically considered.
  With regard to clause stand part, I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. If it appears to the Chair that there has not been adequate debate on all the matters that come within clause 2, the position will certainly be reconsidered at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. The complexities of this point are considerable because, as I understand it, the base statute is the European Communities Act 1972 and the amending legislation is clause 2 of the Bill that we are discussing, which puts into effect at least one, two or even three parts of the Single European Act. In fact, the jurisdiction of the court to which the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) referred rests on no fewer than three principal pieces of treaty and primary legislation.
  We may well have an exhaustive debate—although I hope not exhausting—on the principle of the court, but in the ensuing debates on the remainder of clause I, and before we reach clause 2 stand part, issues may arise relating to the suitability and competence — even the wisdom—of the court in dealing with some of the issues that arise in that debate between now and then.
  When we reach clause 2 stand part, I hope that it will be possible to put to you, Sir Paul, the possibility of having another, shorter debate on the points that have arisen, rather than having a straight vote in the order of sequence of events. I hope that I can have your assurance on that.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I thought that I had made it clear in answer to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that we can consider that point. Without giving any commitment, I can say that the Chair will be prepared to consider that matter when we reach the appropriate stage.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Sir Paul. Am I interpreting correctly the notice in the name of the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, who has made specific mention of clause stand part only when it is taken in conjunction with amendments? In the provisional selection list there is no mention of a debate and vote on clause 3 stand part. That cannot possibily mean, can it, Sir Paul, that there will not be a debate and vote—I raise this point for the elucidation of the House—because it is not being taken in conjunction with any amendment, and so does not appear on the list? It is not the intention to go against the normal rules of Committee stage and not have a debate and vote, is it?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee on that point. The only reason that clause 2 stand part appears on the selection list is that it was thought proper for it to be debated with other amendments. Of course, as the Committee well knows, the usual procedure is that, assuming that all the matters on a certain clause have not been discussed on the amendments, a debate is allowed on clause stand part.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most obliged, Sir Paul.
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Sir Paul. Perhaps you could help me in anticipation. I notice that the second
  818
  group of amendments has amendments to do with clause 1 and clause 3. Were you telling my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that there would be a debate on clause 1 stand part, that there would be a debate on clause 3 stand part and even, perhaps, on clause 4 stand part? Can you say at what stage those debates will take place?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I cannot guarantee that; it will depend on the course of the debate. When we have disposed of the amendments relating to a clause, the Chair then has to decide whether the whole of that clause has been fully aired and discussed. I cannot anticipate the decision of the Chair; we must wait until we reach that stage.
  Mr. Deakins: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. It is an important point about clause 3, although I do not wish to raise it now because it does not arise until we reach the second grouping of amendments. However, on the more general principle, may I strongly emphasise that the amendments to clause 3, such as they are — there are about half a dozen, some of which are in my name—do not exhaust the possibilities of clause 3 and its serious implications for this House and the people of this country?
  If one were not certain that there was to be a debate on clause 3 stand part, hon. Members—myself included—might be tempted to make rather lengthier speeches on the individual amendments on the basis that otherwise we would be deprived of the opportunity to make the general points of principle that do not arise on specific amendments.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I cannot anticipate that, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises. I understand what he is saying and when we have dealt with the amendments to clause 3, the Chair will consider sympathetically a request for a clause stand part debate. I think that he will appreciate that I cannot go further than that at this stage.
  Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Sir Paul. May I ask you two questions? I appreciate that the European Single Act encompasses many amendments to the treaty of Rome and to other treaties of the European Communities, but can we take it that these amendments are tabled for the purposes of the debate? Secondly, the Government have published a document which is of considerable relevance to the debate on the entire subject with which we are concerned this evening. They have produced a strategy document on behalf of themselves and the Governments of Ireland and Italy. This has been given some exposure in the press and apparently it outlines the Government's objectives during the presidency of the European Council, which Britain will take over in two weeks' time. That will be a subject of considerable substance during the debate on the Single Act.
  Despite the fact that the document has been given press coverage, no copy of it has been deposited in the Library, nor is it available in the Vote Office. How are Members to assess the position of the European Council if we do not have available a document of such importance? As I understand it, it outlines the Government's major strategy during their presidency of the Council of Ministers. Can you help the Committee on whether the document can be made available before we start our consideration of the Bill?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I shall make inquiries about the document to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I remind the Committee that we are debating the Bill and the amendments to it. It will be much easier to judge what is in order and how we should proceed if we start the debate. It is a complicated Bill and there is a complicated series of amendments. I think that it will he appreciated that it would he most unwise of me to try to make judgments on hypothetical cases. Let us see how we get on.
  Mr. Ian Cow: On a point of order, Sir Paul. There is no one in the Chamber who can match the length of service of that of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), but I ask you to assist the Committee further on the selection. In my short time in the House of Commons, I have never seen a selection by the Chair that states that certain amendments shall be discussed with a particular clause standing part of the Bill. I have never seen a selection which suggests that there should be a stand part debate in advance of the Committee considering the clause in question. Is it a precedent that the Chair shall decide that there will be a clause stand part debate before the Committee has engaged in debate on the amendments that are before it?
  If I understand the selection which has been made of the groups of amendments, it is that the Committee is to consider whether clause 2 should stand part of the Bill before any possible debate, which would be in your discretion, Sir Paul, on whether clause I should stand part of the Bill.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I believe that there are precedents for the selection including a clause stand part debate. Its presence in the selection is intended merely to convey to the Committee that there is a strong connection between amendment No. 1 and clause 2. It is intended to guide and assist the Committee on the course of the first debate. I repeat my assurance that the fact that the clause stand part debate is grouped with the first batch of amendments will not prejudice the possibility, at the appropriate time, of a debate on whether clause 2 should stand part of the Bill, if the Chair judges that all the matters directly relevant to clause 2 have not been considered fully.
  Mr. Cow: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. I am most grateful for your ruling, but it may have occurred to you during these points of order that, although the inclusion in the first group of amendments of a clause stand part debate was intended to assist the Committee, it has resulted in some confusion.
  7.45 pm
  The Second Deputy Chairman: If that is so, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee. I hope that I have clarified the position. The inclusion of the clause stand part debate in the first group of amendments was intended to be helpful to the Committee. There is a direct connection between amendment No. 1 and clause 2. As I have said, a further discussion on whether clause 2 should stand part of the Bill will not be prejudiced if that appears to be appropriate at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Roger Moate: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. I am sure that the Committee has been completely reassured by your statement. I am sure also that no one doubts that you will not allow the Committee
  820
  to miss an opportunity of having the fullest possible debate on whether clause 2 should stand part of the Bill and on the amendments. The concern of some of us is whether this procedure is creating a precedent. Surely it is unusual on a paper described as the provisional selection of amendments to incorporate a clause 2 stand part debate. You have said, Sir Paul, that this procedure is well precedented, but many of us would find it hard to remember when it was previously done. It would be a matter of general concern if a procedure were adopted—one intended undoubtedly to assist the Committee—and it were seen as a precedent. that could be more widely used by other Chairmen in other circumstances, who might be less generous and concerned for the fullest possible debate than you are, Sir Paul.
  I should like to know whether it is normal procedure to include a clause stand part debate with a list of amendments. If it is precedented, can we establish clearly that it is not expected to be a normal procedure that is to be widely adopted, which might cause great concern?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Each Bill is considered as a Bill. As I have said, there are precedents for a selection of this sort. I have made it clear more than once that the selection will not prejudice the Committee by denying it the opportunity of debating whether clause 2 should stand part of the Bill if, when we reach that stage, such a debate appears to be appropriate. I think that we should get on with the amendments.

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      EXTENDED MEANING OF "THE TREATIES" AND "THE COMMUNITY TREATIES"
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, after `Communities)', insert
      'but not Article 4 of Chapter I thereof'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 13, after `Communities)', insert
      'but not Article 12 thereof'.
      Amendment No. 38, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.
      Clause 2 stand part.
      Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to you, Sir Paul, for selecting the amendment. When hon. Members read it and what is obviously a vital Bill, they will wonder why they are bothering to discuss the amendment at all. The amendment addresses itself only to whether a new proposal in the Single European Act to set up some new courts in addition to the European Court of Justice should be incorporated in the European Communities Act 1972. It must be abundantly obvious to those who have read the amendment and the Bill that whether or not we incorporate such an amendment in British law will not make much difference. If something incorporated in European law is not incorporated in British law, it can still be upheld in the British courts as though it were incorporated in British law. It is sad that what will happen to this amendment will happen to all the other amendments.
      We cannot amend the treaty, which has been signed on our behalf. It is open to us to reject it, and if we took that course we should have to wait and see what happened. I understand that, even if the House of Commons voted

      821
      against the treaty, it would still be relevant and legally binding. That makes many of us wonder whether we have any rights whatsoever to scrutinise, debate and examine in detail any aspects of the important constitutional matter that is before us. That is disturbing.
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is an expert on such matters. Surely he is aware that the institution of the treaty depends on ratification by all sovereign Parliaments in the Community.
      Mr. Taylor: I accept that that is the pivot of ratification. I think that my hon. Friend, who is also knowledgeable on such matters, has established that laws which have been pressed by the Community in accordance with various provisions are implemented in national states irrespective of members' views. The point I am trying to make is that there is no way we can seek to amend the Act. There is no way we can take out one part and insert another. If the amendment secures nothing else, it will get across to hon. Members the simple fact that on this vital and important issue our powers of scrutiny and of amendment are virtually non-existent.
      Mr. Spearing: Perhaps we can get straight a point I raised earlier on a point of order. Article 33 of the Single European Act treaty — I always call it that because it might get confused with a British Act of Parliament—states:
      "1. This Act will be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
      As I understand it, because of the peculiarly unwritten constitution of this country and the royal prerogative which the Minister of State signed — I do not know whether it was proper for her to do so as she is not a Privy Councillor—all the Committee is doing now is ratifying the Bill holus-bolus with amendment. The Government have said that the Bill, when it becomes law, will ratify the treaty. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that we cannot amend the Act.
      Mr. Taylor: I am trying to put across to hon. Members —I hope that they and the public appreciate it—that we can amend Acts on water charges, taxation, the rights of mothers to allowances, nitrates and water supplies, and so on. Our constituents can write to us and suggest changes; we can have meetings with Ministers; and we can put forward ideas and get things changed. Otherwise, our duty as Members of Parliament would be quite irrelevant. We would be wasting our time. We are dealing with a major Act which enormously changes Britain's rights and the rights of the British people, but there is no way in which we can amend one part or clause of it. We cannot take out a comma. There is nothing we can do, except reject it at the end of the day. I hope that people will appreciate, when we consider Common Market legislation and the form of such treaties, that Members of Parliament can do nothing, apart from saying no to the whole package.
      It is appalling that we did not take part in discussions on what should be included in the treaty and what powers Britain should surrender to the Common Market. We have no power at all. If the Committee stage achieves anything, it will get across to the British people the simple fact that on such matters of detail Members of Parliament have no powers whatsoever.
      Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a great responsibility on the media in this country to take note that this is a game not of draughts, but of chess. It may be a glazed-eye subject for some, but it is a matter of the greatest possible importance to our economic and industrial future. It would be helpful if they took it seriously and commented on it.
      Mr. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are signs that the British people are beginning to wake up to it. We have seen correspondence in The Times on what most newspapers regard as a dead subject. That comment has been helpful. Views have been expressed. People have said to me and to others, "Is that really true?". My hon. Friend had a superb article published in The Times this morning. It is quite clear that people are just beginning to wake up to the realities of the position.
      Many other issues must be discussed. Sadly, all we can decide is whether the reference to a new European court should be put in British law. Obviously, it does not matter all that much. However, because of the kindness of the Chairman's selection and the way in which the short title has been drafted, we have the opportunity to ask the Government certain questions about the Bill. We have the right to make an amendment which would have strange consequences for the treaty. I hope that we can get across the basic point that my hon. Friend has rightly pressed. There is no doubt that the amendment will make people realise that there is a need to change the way in which important decisions are taken.
      Some people say, "It does not matter very much. We are moving, step by step, towards the great European federation. It is going to happen anyway, and there is nothing much we can do about it." The British people are entitled to know where they are going and what is involved. I doubt whether Mr. Average in Britain knows what the Bill will do for him, for his rights and for the rights of his Member of Parliament to look after his interests.
      The Bill proposes a new and additional European court of justice. We already have a court. The European Court of Justice was originally designed to interpret the treaty of Rome. Most people felt that that would be a basic and limited task. However, like all outside courts, once the court was set up its powers were extended enormously by its own decisions. Because of the volume of work, additional courts have been set up to deal with points of law and matters of first instance which are explained in the Single European Act.
      One of the reasons for extending and creating a new court is to deal with additional work. The Act itself will impose a great deal of additional work on the court. [Interruption.] The Minister is shaking her head. Perhaps she means that the answer is no. She will save a great deal of time if she answers the question. A clause in the Single European Act places an obligation on member states to harmonise VAT, excise duties, and so on. In other words, we must harmonise, for the purposes of the completion of the Market, our rates of VAT and excise duty.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it not a matter of harmonising not only rates but applicability?
      Mr. Taylor: I was astonished, when I read a written answer, to ascertain that every Common Market country except Britain levies VAT on gas. Every Common Market country except Britain levies VAT on electricity. Every

      823
      member state, except two, including Britain, puts VAT on food. If we harmonise on VAT, the people of Britain will have to pay VAT on gas, electricity and food.
      When we have raised the question with the Government they have said, "Do not bother about that, because that is one of the few areas where we still have unanimity and limited power of veto." [Interruption.] The Minister is moving her head up and down. I think she means that the answer to that question is yes. It will save a great deal of time if the Minister answers whether, once the measure goes into the Single European Act and becomes part of the treaty, it is likely that the Commission, if it felt that our interpretation of harmonisation was not in accordance with the terms of the Single European Act, will initiate proceedings in the European Court and say, "Britain is not harmonising as we think it should in terms of the Single European Act". Is that possible?
      The Minister has nodded twice. I shall give her the opportunity to say yes or no. Earlier I asked whether the court would be faced with additional work. Will the court be able to consider an application from the Commission that Britain is not harmonising? The Minister will save a great deal of time if she stands up and says, "No, it could not." I do not see any response from the Minister. She is not nodding her head sideways or up and down. She is looking straight ahead.
      Therefore, I must consider that there is some doubt about the issue. My reading of it is absolutely clear. When the Bill becomes law, an enormous additional burden will be placed on the European Court, because it will have to consider applications to the Commission about whether member states are implementing various provisions. The harmonisation of VAT is only one.
      8 pm
      Mr. Marlow: No doubt my hon. Friend is aware of proposed article 99 under article 17 of the Single European Act. Referring to
      "the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation,"
      it states:
      "The Council shall, acting unanimously".
      Surely, if my hon. Friend the Minister of State were on the Council and her view was such that the Council was not unanimous, that should be the end of the matter. We should not, therefore, be confronted with a threat by the European Council.
      Mr. Taylor: It was my understanding, on the basis of the Government's assurances, that that was the position. Having taken the best legal advice available to me, my reading of the treaty is that, if there was not unanimity and if Britain were out of step and the Commission took the view that Britain had not harmonised to the extent it thought was justified—even though our Chancellor or Prime Minister believed that we were doing as much as we should—the Commission could take us to the European Court.
      Mr. Spearing: In raising the question of the jurisdiction of the court, the hon. Gentleman has perhaps ensured that the Minister gives us an answer to a question which will certainly arise later. My understanding is that directives passed in 1978, which related not to the Common Market but to the enforced harmonisation of VAT, would circumvent this provision, even if the Ministers were unanimous. If a case were taken to the European Court
      824
      under those provisions, which were made many years ago, we would be told that we would have to harmonise. That is what the Government have been doing in the past few years on alcohol taxes.
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has raised a slightly different issue. He referred to the obligation of Ministers to act in that way. My argument is that, even if we did not agree and used our veto, the court would have the additional work of interpreting all these articles in the Single European Act. The Commission, or, so far as I understand it, the Leader of the Opposition, could take us to the European Court, saying that we were not truly implementing the various provisions of that legislation.
      Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the evidence given to the House of Lords Select Committee by the right hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Rees)? He said that the harmonisation of VAT on take-away food had proved politically sensitive and that the Council of Ministers might not be a good institution to obtain that harmonisation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the European Court would provide a far better vehicle. He gave the example of the infraction proceedings taken against the United Kingdom over the alcohol taxes. He explained that that was why Britain had held down the increase in duty on wine and increased the duty on beer. He said that, if there were a general principle in the basic EEC treaty, which there was, and the court were prepared to hand down judgments, as it was. that would be the best engine of progress for the harmonisation of VAT.
      Mr. Taylor: We shall debate harmonisation of VAT later. My point concerns not harmonisation but the fact that the court interprets the treaty of Rome as it is now. Under this measure it will have extra points to interpret, and the Commission will be able to take action to force the United Kingdom to do things that this Parliament might not want it to do.
      In some instances, we have the protection of veto on policy decisions, but we do not have that right on matters that are incorporated in the treaty of Rome.
      Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that the law to which he refers is given legal force in the United Kingdom by section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 and therefore has precedence over prior British law under the tag lex posterior derogat priori, which in effect means "If you do not do what we tell you to do, you will get a kick in the behind"?
      Mr. Taylor: Yes. These Common Market debates used to be attended by one or two hon. Members who were obsessed about the subject. I welcome the fact that hon. Members with legal knowledge and experience, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). are waking up to the fact that something damaging and dangerous is happening. That is an encouraging sign. Those who read the splendid evidence by the chairman of GEC to the House of Lords Select Committee will appreciate that people in business and commerce are beginning to say, "Wait a minute. What is happening to our democracy and our rights as a nation?"
      Will not this extra court have the job of interpreting additions to the treaty?
      Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my hon. Friend warn the business community that the courts in the EEC take a view about their powers that is very much wider than that taken by British courts? European courts often not only take into account what the mere statute or directive says but give it a gloss saying what they believe the EEC's policy is or should be.
      Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. People must appreciate that European courts differ totally from British courts. Our courts consider the law as it is. I refer, for example, to the recent case decided by the European Court on a matter relating to British Customs and Excise. Customs and Excise was adamant that it had taken certain powers in stopping the import of various goods. Customs and Excise went to the European Court confident that it could not lose, but it did.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, European courts take a different view from British courts. I shall give details of what was regarded by some as a flippant matter, although not by those who are concerned with the moral character of our nation. Customs and Excise took it upon itself to ban the import from Germany of rubber inflatable dolls used for purposes of sexual gratification. It took the view that it was entitled so to do.
      Mr. George Foulkes: Entitled so to do what?
      Mr. Taylor: It took the view that it was entitled to block the import of those rubber inflatable dolls into the United Kingdom. A British company, Cohengate, took Customs and Excise to the European Court of Justice, which deliberated in great detail upon this matter. It decided that Customs and Excise had no such right. These dolls are now being imported.
      Mr. Deakins: Surely there is a provision in the treaty of Rome, from way back in 1957, that a free market in goods does not take away from national Governments the right to prohibit imports on the grounds of "moral welfare" or some such words; I cannot remember the particular provision. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the court went against the spirit of that provision?
      Mr. Taylor: It did not go against the spirit of the provision. The court said, "Customs and Excise has stopped these goods entering the United Kingdom through the provisions of the Obscene Publications Act. Although we accept that Customs and Excise based its judgment on what applied in the United Kingdom, the British obscene publications law is unclear. It refers merely to goods that are regarded as "offensive". It is not specific. Britain does not have a specific law that bans the manufacture or sale of those goods.
      Mr. John Butterfill: Were not those articles manufactured and on sale in the United Kingdom? Therefore, the court's ruling was that, until their manufacture or sale were banned in this country, it would be unreasonable to ban their importation.
      Mr. Taylor: Indeed, I shall come to that point. I have a letter from the Solicitor-General which explains the matter in detail. I understand that it was nothing to do with manufacture in Britain. The court said that Britain did not have a specific law that prohibited the manufacture of that specified item. It had only the rather loosely
      826
      worded Obscene Publications Act. The court said, "Unless you have a specific law that prevents the manufacture or sale of these items, it is wrong to prohibit their import."
      I do not believe that people are fully aware that the European Court, which was set up to interpret the treaty of Rome—to determine what was right and wrong in that important treaty—is concerning itself with matters such as rubber inflatable dolls. That is only one of a series of examples which I could give in a wide area. The Minister will accept that the courts, like the other courts, have extended their jurisdiction because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford rightly said, they do not take the same view of the law as do the British courts.
      Mr. Budgen: It is also because they refer to the treaty of Rome. The treaty does not give specific instances of what may be done in relation to rubber dolls; it speaks in terms of general principles. I could say for the sake of argument that the importation of rubber dolls is necessary to enhance free trade in the Community. It is almost impossible to anticipate the nature of any decision because the judges usually refer to wide but conflicting principles. They then take what is essentially a political decision in deciding which of those principles they prefer in the circumstances of a given case.
      Mr. Taylor: I have no reason to try to trivialise the discussion. I shall mention one example which my hon. Friend may regard as most significant. Many of us will have received deputations at our surgeries recently—
      Sir Russell Johnston: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I suggest that it is slightly bizarre that he should criticise the law on the continent or in other parts of Europe as being "different" from British law, when it is generally recognised that Scottish and continental law, being based on Roman law, has great similarities. The hon. Gentleman may have noted that when he represented Glasgow, Cathcart.
      Mr. Taylor: I do not wish to become involved in Scottish law and English law. I am trying to develop an important point of principle. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is always obsessively putting forward the merits of the Community, will at least accept that this is a valid point — and a point which his constituents in Inverness should be as worried about as my constituents in Southend.
      Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. Allowing the Scottish legal system to continue was a recognition that the two traditions were different and that they could not be satisfactorily mixed. The recognition of the separate tradition of the Scots was necessary. It would be much better if we could honestly recognise differences rather than fiddle and fudge along, as we do at present in relation to the EEC, pretending that their system is the same as ours.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We must get back to the amendment. The hon. Gentleman is spending much time discussing the merits or demerits of the existing courts. I remind him that this amendment deals with new powers and new courts. I hope that he will come to that.
      Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Sir Paul. Is it not necessary to discuss the law in the existing courts in the

      827
      EEC before the House can decide whether it is wise to extend those courts and to extend the jurisdiction of that law?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I am prepared to allow some discussion on that, but it would not be in order to discuss at length and in detail the merits or demerits of the existing court. Mr. Teddy Taylor.
      Mr. Taylor rose—
      Mr. Marlow: I am afraid that my hon. Friend seems to be seeing everything in an unfortunate vein. Everything seems to be against us today. My hon. Friend is rightly concerned with the moral aspects as a father of young children. If he looks at the back of the Single European Act, he will find under the general declaration of articles 13 to 19 of the Single European Act the following statement:
      "Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries, and to combat terrorism, crime, the traffic in drugs and illicit trading in works of art and antiques."
      If Her Majesty's Government were to make it a crime to trade in those commodities, the existing court, and perhaps the amended court, would have to prevent their import into the United Kingdom, because it would be a criminal offence to do so.
      Mr. Taylor: I merely want to read out the following paragraph from a letter I received from the Solicitor-General:
      "As to the conduct of the case, the Government have appeared and argued that the Customs authorities were entitled to act as they did. The Customs authorities, in all the three domestic courts which dealt with the case, and the United Kingdom Government before the European Court of Justice, argued strenuously that the import ban was compatible with Community law. Written observations were made to the European Court of Just ice, and the Government were also represented at the oral hearing to reinforce their arguments. Unfortunately the Court of Justice came to the conclusion that the import prohibition is unlawful, although only to the extent I have outlined above."
      8.15 pm
      That extension of the power of the European Court provides us with two alternatives. We either do as provided in clause 2 and make more courts, or we say, "Hold on a minute. Let us try to find whether, by restricting the number of courts, we may put some restriction on the ever-increasing role of the court in deciding British issues, which should be decided by British courts." Most of us—I am sure you, too, Sir Paul—have received visits during the past few weeks from our constituents representing animal welfare. They are worried about something called the LD50 test; we try new drugs on a controlled group of animals, for example 100 monkeys or 100 rats, and stuff them with the drug until half of them die. Some people consider that to be a very distasteful test and they object to it. They ask hon. Members what we can do. I have seen a written answer from the Minister saying, "If we tried to ban this we would be taken to the European Court. It would be contrary to the Treaty of Rome to do so because it is a European law."
      The European Court is extending its jurisdiction, not just into weighty matters of law between nations but into matters which arc decided by domestic Parliaments or by domestic courts.
      What will be the powers of the new court of first instance? We are told in the Single European Act that its
      828
      powers will be related basically to points of law. I wish to ask the Minister about the wording of clause 2 of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which puts no limit on the number of new courts. Clause 2(b) states:
      "In sections 3(2) and (3) and 11(1) (which as regards the European Court, provide for judicial notice to be taken of its pronouncements, for proof of its judgments and orders, and for the trial and punishment of persons who in sworn evidence before it make statements which they know to he false or do not believe to be true)."
      Is it the Government's intention to introduce an Act before Parliament which will give to the European Court the power to punish and try persons from the United Kingdom? If so, what is the range of the punishments? If they will he put in prison, to which prison will they go? I see, perhaps wrongly, in clause 2(b) a major extension of the court's jurisdiction, in that, in the court of first instance, it will be possible for persons to be tried and punished not by domestic courts, but by the European Court of Justice.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend has made a strong case warning us about the problems of the extension of the powers of the court. I draw to his attention a warning which the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has highlighted in its third report at paragraphs 12 to 14. It stated that, whether or not there is a change in the powers of the court, the preamble could lead to variations in the implementation of the treaty. That was a response to a specific request made by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
      Since the preamble makes it clear in paragraph 2 that the work undertaken on the basis of the treaties establishing the European Communities and to transform relations as a whole among their states into a European union is an important element of the Single European Act, there is a strong danger, to which we should be alerted, that provision in the Act may be interpreted by the existing courts without any extension of its power along lines which are contrary to the views which Britain has hitherto expressed. Does my hon. Friend consider that that is a serious danger and would he invite my hon. Friend the Minister to give us some reassurance?
      Mr. Budgen: We do not want reassurance. We want the truth.
      Mr. Lawrence: There is no question of the preamble being interpreted by the court in terms of a European union when deciding any of the specific terms which would be contrary to the wishes of Parliament.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Gentleman and his well rehearsed cast of supporting players are making our flesh creep miserably with tales of the horrors that will be perpetrated by the courts. Is the hon. Gentleman maintaining that a complex system such as the European Community can possibly be made to function to the benefit of the United Kingdom without an effective court and that the court of first instance is designed to make that court more effective? He makes our flesh creep with tales of inflatable dolls that will be imported. Were it a question of other countries seeking to prohibit imports of Scotch whisky on the ground that it was damaging to the health of their people I have no doubt that he would be taking a very different view about the necessity for the court to be able to police the operation of the treaty.
      Mr. Taylor: If I was to get involved in discussions of that sort I would be here all night. It is my experience, which may be the result of prejudice, that we do not seem to do well when there are disputes. I can think of a local firm which is virtually being put out of business because of the way in which the inner German trade agreement was working. We have been to the Commission and the court time and again but it never seems to work to our advantage. That is another point.
      Whether the court is fair or not is a matter of political judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) supports his view with great sincerity, but I am sure that he will appreciate that surely the people of Britain are entitled to know what is happening and that there is a huge increase in the kind of decisions—
      Mr. Butterfill rose—
      Mr. Taylor: Before I give way, will my hon. Friend confirm that he is not one of my supporting acts?
      Mr. Butterfill: I am happy to confirm that I am not one of his supporting acts. I should like to correct what I think is a misunderstanding on his part with regard to the extension of the powers of the court for trial and punishment. I refer my hon. Friend to clause 2(b). It seems that the European Court already has the power for the trial and punishment of persons who commit perjury, which is what this amounts to. The clause does nothing more than extend that existing power to any new court which may be attached to the European Court. Therefore, it is not a new power but merely an extension of an existing power.
      Mr. Taylor: If my hon. Friend reads what I have said, he will see that I made exactly that point. The power is there in the treaty of Rome, but it is being extended to the court of first instance which we are told is dealing with issues subject to appeal on points of law. I am simply asking the Minister whether he can establish any grounds in which we are discussing points of law where there were justifications for the European Court to try to imprison any constituent of mine.
      Mr. Cash: I may offer a slight ray of hope to my hon. Friend in relation to the interpretation of matters before the European Court. Contrary to the practice in the British courts where one may not seek in aid and construction of statutes the proceedings of this House involved, that rule of interpretation is not so strictly applied when it comes to the European courts. The question of whether the Minister may or may not make a statement with regard to the important matters which my hon. Friend has raised may, in due course, turn out to be more relevant than some hon. Members previously thought.
      Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that he is right.
      Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has raised a new and serious point. My hon. Friend knows a lot about the details of European law. He knew enough to earn his living from it. He made the good point that in construing European legislation the judges look at what is said by Ministers or by persons in a political position. The European courts constantly take what are not really legal decisions but political decisions. Therefore, those of us who are sceptical of some of the wider principles set out in the treaty ought to realise that those wider principles are looked at as aids to the
      830
      construing of legislation by European judges. It is essentially a political court. It is not a court in the narrow sense as we have come to understand our courts in this country. Therefore, although my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) glibly asks the Minister for reassurance, there can be no reassurance. It is essentially an alien system of law.
      Mr. Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made an important point, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West, who has left the Chamber, that he is not one of my supporting team. He referred to one of the possible extensions which was not, as far as I can see, referred to in the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I do not know if my hon. and learned Friend has seen it but the wording used is like most international agreements. The Single European Act is prefaced by a preamble. According to the Foreign Office—who knows more about it than the Foreign Office?—the preamble is
      "'an integral part' of the Treaty 'but neither confers rights or creates obligations' … It nonetheless provides the 'context' the interpretation of the operative text, and thus could lead to variation in the implementation of the Treaty."
      In other words, even the preamble which refers to a commitment to European union could affect decisions before the new court and before the old court.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton is not one of my supporting cast and he has been a trusted and valuable supporter of the EEC throughout its existence. He is pointing out a real danger. First, we have a court which is extending its powers anyway, and we have plenty of examples of that. Secondly, it is extending its powers on European union through the preamble and, thirdly, it is extending its powers because it will have the task of implementing or adjudicating on the way in which member states are implementing the new Single Act, even if there is majority voting and unanimity. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give us some guidance. Is the reason for the new court that we cannot cope because of those three specific items?
      Mr. Lawrence: Before my hon. Friend goes on, I should like to confirm the correctness of what he said. I helped to draft the passage that he read out.
      Mr. Taylor: Apart from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who has left the Chamber, there are few of what we might call obsessive Europeans in the House. I hope that those who are in that category, and there is only one present now, would take the view that there are people who have always supported the EEC and who want to see it be successful but who have been worried sick about the extent to which British sovereignty is being eroded by the existing court and by the new court which is being created.
      Mr. Butterfill: On this occasion I hope to be helpful to my hon. Friend. I made the very point that he is now making with regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which is contained in the preamble. It is sad that it should be contained in the preamble and I hope that the Government will take an early opportunity to deratify that convention because it seems that most of the political decisions which come out of European courts come not from the European Court which is attached to the treaty but from the European Court of Human Rights.
      Mr. Taylor: I was certainly not referring to the European Court of Human Rights. It would not be in order for me to do that during the debate. If my hon. Friend is really concerned about parliamentary sovereignty he knows, as I do, that this was ratified for a further five years by a written answer in the House. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has nothing to do with what we are discussing. It has nothing to do with the Bill and nothing to do with the Common Market. We agreed to join that once again for a period of five years by means of a written answer in the House.
      What is disturbing me, and what I hope will disturb my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). is the fact that on issues of the sovereignty of Parliament and our people we have no effective control in the House of Commons. It is only now, I am glad to say, that a considerable number of hon. Members are starting to ask why we cannot have some say in the important decision making. I would be glad to join my hon. Friend and say that we should have some discussion about the Court of Human Rights. However, it is too late. We cannot do anything for another five years. I do not know whether my hon. Friend or I will survive the next election. Let us forget about the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for five years. There is nothing we can do about it. Even if the House voted 629 votes to one to tear it to pieces it will still apply for five years. That decision was taken by written answer in the House. If that does not get us worried, what should?
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend said that the decision that was conveyed to the House in a written answer about the European Court of Human Rights binds us for five years. I should like to draw his attention to the preamble to the Single European Act. Surely that binds us for ever.
      Mr. Taylor: How right my hon. Friend is. Once it is ratified, the Single European Act is there for ever. I take the view that this is a dangerous and bad piece of legislation. The Minister, who has not been entirely helpful in this regard, may take the view that it is not a bad piece of legislation. She may say that we are looking for troubles where they do not exist. The fact is that none of us knows. The European Court will decide what the Single European Act does. It will not be the Government, me or other Members of Parliament. That will be decided by the European Court, which will interpret the new treaty.
      Therefore, we must be careful and cautious before we give the court additional scope to do things and decide things. If we did not agree to the creation of the additional court, that would be a lesson to the European Court of Justice that we are getting just a bit worried about the extent to which it is extending its jurisdiction.
      I should like to ask a few detailed questions in relation to the amendment. The first is: how many new staff will be employed by the court, and what will be the cost? That may be regarded as a silly and niggling question, but I do not regard it as such. The Commission is another great arm of the Common Market. Only today I asked how many people it employed in the year before the Conservatives came to power and how many people are now employed, bearing in mind the fact that we believe in reducing the number of civil servants. I received the astonishing information that the total number of persons
      832
      employed by the Commission was 7,983 at that time, and is now 10,881—a substantial increase in the number of persons employed.
      Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend is omitting to notice that there are now more members of the Community—Spain and Portugal. They have to have their interpreters and other staff.
      Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the figures that I was given were in 1 January 1986, which was round about the time when Spain and Portugal were joining the Community. I would not have thought that all the staff were in place on the day when the new members joined.
      Mr. Deakins: In his answer from the Minister, did the hon. Gentleman get any information about the number of people currently employed in the European Court of Justice, and the number of people expected to be employed in a subsidiary court?
      Mr. Taylor: That is the point on which I was hoping that the Minister would give us an answer. How many people are employed by the European Court of Justice? How many will be employed in the new courts? There will be not just one court. There will be one for the European Coal and Steel Community and one for the EEC. There will be at least two new courts. We want to know how many people will be employed and what the cost will be. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is not just one extra court. We have articles 4 and 11—
      Mr. Deakins: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. At least, I hope that he has. I should be appalled if he were right. One looks to the Minister for an answer. Surely there are three separate provisions in the Single European Act, altering each of the three basic treaties, because there are three basic treaties, each of which is supervised by the court. Therefore, the extra court would be merely one extra court for the European Court of Justice as a whole. There should not be three extra courts.
      Mr. Taylor: That was my understanding when I first heard about it. I had heard the Minister talking about one extra court.
      I see that the Bill does not refer to "an" extra court. hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at it carefully. It says:
      "decision of the European Court or any court attached thereto".
      There are other references to "any court attached thereto". I should have thought that if there were one extra court, the Bill would say "the" court. In fact, one of my amendments says that.
      Mr. Deakins: I seriously think that the hon. Gentleman got it wrong. Clause 2 mentions "the European Court". As I understand it, there is only one European Court, which regulates the affairs of the Communities under the provisions of the three basic treaties. All that we are being asked to approve — even that would be beyond what some of us want—is one extra court for the one existing European Court.
      Mr. Taylor: I should like to think that that was so. If that was the answer, I should be satisfied. The hon. Gentleman has been bold enough to say that he is sure that I am wrong, but I hope that he will look at the Bill

      833
      carefully. The wording is, "any court attached thereto". If we were to have one extra court, the Bill would have said "the court attached thereto", not "any court".
      Mr. Spearing: It might be better to clarify this point straight away. As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) is right. There is a European Court of the European Community, covering the three treaties. It sits in several courts, in that it hears several cases at once, rather like our High Court in the Strand. The provisions set up a lower tier of the European Court, which may be in the plural. It may be an undefined number. That is what I understand the set up to be, which is much more serious than that even the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) envisaged.
      Mr. Taylor: Indeed. I hope that I did not appear to be discourteous to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins), but I believe that he should look at the Bill more carefully. He is one of the most conscientious Members in looking into such matters. If he was right, the Bill would have said, "the European Court or the court attached thereto". But I understand that there will be several subsidiary courts. I may be wrong, but we have no information on the real position. I should like the Minister to tell me how many more there will be. Does the Council of Ministers have any control?
      We know that the Council of Ministers is taking upon itself in a later article the power to amend the rules of the court. Is there any control of the staff costs and the numbers? Can the Minister give me an idea of what she would regard as a reasonable extra number of people, or a reasonable extra cost?
      Mr. Marlow: Maybe I am seeing bogies where they do not exist. My hon. Friend has studied the matter more deeply than I have, but, as he says, clause 2 refers to "any court attached thereto". It may well be that the Bill is written in such a way at the moment so that it anticipates what might happen several years hence. With the Bill written as it is, is it not possible that at some stage a future United Kingdom Government could agree with its European partners that the British High Court could be a court subsidiary to the European Court, and part of that court?
      Mr. Taylor: That may be done, but it is not relevant to the amendment. I am anxious to continue with my detailed questions.
      My second detailed question is pretty fundamental. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and her advisers will take note of it so that I can get a clear, specific reply.
      Mr. Butterfill: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Article 32 d(2) says:
      "The Council, following the procedure laid down in paragraph 1, shall determine the composition of that court and adopt the necessary adjustments and additional provisions to the Statute of the Court of Justice."
      Does that not answer the questions that my hon. Friend was asking?
      Mr. Taylor: It does not. I am concerned about the control over the number of people. My hon. Friend was referring to article 4. Let him turn over the page and look at article 11. There he will see another reference to a court and the EEC treaty. It is true that, under article 12, the Council has the power to fix the rules of the court—the
      834
      rules of operation—but not, unfortunately, the numbers of people employed or the global cost. I should like to know who is controlling the cost of that operation. Is somebody somewhere saying, "We think a reasonable cost should be X, Y, or Z, and a reasonable number of staff is this."? Does the Court of Auditors have jurisdiction—I understand that it does not—over whether too many people are employed in the new court? I hope that the Minister will give me and my hon. Friend the answer. Who controls the numbers and the costs? Does somebody do it at some stage?
      The next important issue that I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to clarify is whether the new court. which will deal with points of law and Community institutions, will have jurisdiction to implement judgments in so far as they apply to the various inherent parts of the Community. By those inherent parts I refer specifically to the European Assembly which we will have to call a European Parliament.
      Mr. Deakins: There is no way that I will call it that.
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Walthamstow may say that he will not call it a Parliament, but I can assure him that it will legally be the European Parliament if the Bill is enacted and the Parliament ratified.
      The Minister will be aware that one of the most interesting cases to come before the European Court of Justice recently was a decision by the court that the European Assembly or Parliament had paid out from British taxpayers' money a sum of £27,547,000 to political parties in Europe. That money was paid out illegally, without justification and was used for wrongful purposes. That is not my view; that was the decision of the European Court. The court said that it was a fiddle that £27 million of our taxpayers' money was filched by the so-called European Assembly or Parliament and handed out to political parties.
      Bearing in mind the judgment that I have described, I expected something to happen. I have been peppering the Order Paper with questions to Ministers asking what has happened to the money. When will that money be paid back? The answer that I receive is that it is a matter for the European Parliament. The Minister may take that view, but who does the money belong to? I have plenty of constituents who find it difficult to pay their taxes and to get the money that they need for essential services. Like the constituencies of many other hon. Members, my constituency contains hospitals in which wards have been closed. Nothing sickens us more than to see money wasted. However, this money was not wasted; it was fraudulently used. That is the view of the European Court of Justice.
      Why should we bother about the decisions of the European Court of Justice affecting us and jump to implement its decisions when nothing has happened after the court's ruling on the fraudulent use of our funds? I have asked the Minister what will happen to the money and if it will be returned to us. Nothing has happened, although we have been told that a committee of the so-called European Parliament is considering the matter.
      Mr. Cash: As I tried to explain in my article in today's edition of The Times, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred, the European Parliament does not have an executive to which it can address questions which, in its turn, is accountable to an electorate. Therefore, when matters go before the

      835
      European Parliament, we must not be misled into imagining that merely because a problem arises within the framework of the European Parliament—whether or not the Bill is enacted—the questions can be answered by Ministers who must answer them in a democratic assembly.
      Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend has made a fair point. He has said that there is not much that we can do about the matter under the present set-up. However, we are considering a new set-up. The Government have said in many publications that the measure will improve the workings of the European Parliament, and presumably that means stopping the abuse of cash for fraudulent purposes.
      Will the new court, in the first instance, have the power to take action over the fraudulent use of money by the European Parliament in relation to the use of 40 million ecu or the £27,547,000 at current exchange rates paid to European political parties? The new court will do many things to interfere with the decision making of individuals and Governments, but will it stop the scandal that I have referred to and, if not, why not?
      My next question relates to article 12, which arises under the amendment. That gives the Council the power to change rules of jurisdiction. It also gives the Council of Ministers the power to amend the statute. That is a most unusual power to grant to the Council of Ministers. I may be told that I should not worry about this as it is simply a common term and rather like a regulation going through the House of Commons. However, what is covered by "rules" and "the statute"? Is it possible that article 4(12) would give the Council of Ministers the power to extend the jurisdiction of the court? We have already heard from the Foreign Office representatives appearing before the Select Committee that the preamble— which does not include any powers — will influence the European Court's decisions by making it have more regard to the concepts of European union. If we approve the measure, will we give the Council of Ministers the power to amend the rules in such a way as to extend the jurisdiction of the court? We must remember that we do not have any power over its actions at present. That is a fundamental point and we are entitled to a clear answer.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: As I understand it, surely the Council must act unanimously. Does that not specifically enshrine a British veto on any application of the clause in the manner that my hon. Friend suggested?
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Taylor: Indeed, it may. A point of detail is involved and I hope that my hon. Friend was present when I raised it earlier. Although we hear much about veto, I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Single European Act will grant the court and not the Council the power to take decisions. There is a problem over the power of veto to protect us on the question of harmonising VAT. However, once the measure is passed, the court will make the decision.
      My hon. Friend knows more than most hon. Members about the working of the Community. My hon. Friend will know that the Council of Ministers often works by horse trading. Often Ministers say that they will agree in one council if Ministers will agree on another matter in another council. That is natural with the constitution of the
      836
      Community. It is inevitable that if we are desperately anxious to get something through the Council of Transport Ministers and the French are stopping us, but the French are anxious to get something through the Council of Health Ministers, we can — not openly — reach an arrangement. To that extent, the power of veto and a change in the rules does not provide the protection that I require. If there is to be a change in the rules, will that extend the Government's jurisdiction or powers?
      Mr. Cash: This is an extremely important question. The problem sometimes arises in the context of our domestic legislation in the United Kingdom. Orders are sometimes made under what is known as the Henry VIII system whereby we are requested to agree to legislation which, by order, will enable us or a Minister to amend the provisions of an Act of Parliament. It is well known that that provision is deeply resisted by the House, because it is using a form of procedure that is appropriate to subordinate legislation to amend a substantive Act of Parliament.
      I am worried about whether the provision that we are discussing does the same by giving the power to the Council. I should like to emphasise that, because the power is permissive and is conferred on the Council acting unanimously. That is a further restraint, and I concede that. None the less, that is a significant power that is granted to the Council to enable the provisions of title 3 of the statute to be changed when the proceedings before the House are being enacted in the present form because at present it would not be open to any order-making power to confer provisions in the same way.
      Mr. Taylor: I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought his long legal experience to bear on this matter. He has confirmed my worry. The Council will be granted the power to amend title 3 of the statute. That is the power to change legislation and the Council will make that decision.
      To supplement the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, I should like to know what the rule changing involves. It can mean anything at all under article 12 because the rules under which the courts operate can be amended by the Council in any way that it thinks fit. Do we have any protection against such amendments changing the actual jurisdiction of the court?
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) suggested that there was nothing to worry about because there had to be unanimity in the Council, so we could veto any change in the powers of the court. Mention has been made of barter—"You agree this for us and we will agree that for you". Before this measure ever saw the light of day our Prime Minister said that it was unnecessary, as indeed it was. This massive constitutional change was agreed to by our Government and Prime Minister as a basis for barter. The rebate due to us was being obstructed and we agreed to this because we wanted to get our money back. Yet this is one of the most fundamental pieces of legislation to come before the House. As a result of that barter we have agreed to something in which we do not believe and which we do not regard as being of any use or interest to the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Taylor: To follow that intervention would raise much wider issues than are covered by the amendment, but my hon. Friend is right in one respect. It is not this clause

      837
      that will determine the power of the court. My fear is that the court will be able to determine its own jurisdiction and powers. We have already received a warning from the Foreign Office, of all places, about the danger of encroachment on British sovereignty by the EEC. The Foreign Office warned the Select Committee that even the mealy-mouthed preamble about European union would affect the context in which the European Court will make its decisions. If the Foreign Office is getting worried about the powers of the Common Market, it is time for all of us to put up the panic signals.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves article 3, perhaps he will tell us whether he has succeeded in finding title 3 and, if so, where he found it.
      Mr. Taylor: Title 3 is in article 188 at the back of the EEC treaty. The Library found it for me. Right at the back there is a description of the powers of the European Court.
      My fourth question to the Government is equally fundamental. Will any of the rule changes set out in article 12 be subject to the approval of the Parliaments of member states, or does the Council of Ministers have the right to act without reference to the United Kingdom Parliament? That is extremely important. The Government may say, "What does it matter about Parliament? We will get agreement to this, come what may." But there is a great deal to be said for bringing things before the House. At least it is a way of telling people what is happening. Those of us who have been here for a long tme may wonder whether our debates achieve very much, but at least they bring the issues before the people. If a fundamental rule change for the operation of the European Court of Justice is made at a meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels very few people in Britain will know anything about it, but if such changes have to be debated by the House of Commons and approved or rejected those who are expert in these matters will ensure that people know exactly what is going on. We may not change Government policy on that occasion, but the matter will be borne in mind for the future.
      We were all here when the Government rushed through the big increase in VAT own resources. Some of the public were outraged at the huge increase in Common Market spending, but we did not manage to stop it. Nevertheless, as a result of the issues raised in that debate it would be very difficult, even with the help of the Foreign Office and the Treasury, to put through a further increase in VAT because people now have some idea what is going on. That is why it is so important that if there is to be a change in the rules of operation of the European Court under article 12 the approval of Parliament should be sought. Then at least we shall know what is going on and can bear it in mind if a further rule change comes up.
      How often can rule changes be made? Clause 2 gives the impression that there is to be just one change, but my reading of the measure suggests that the Council of Ministers can make regular changes. Regular changes cannot be made without changing the powers and scope of the new court and, indeed, the existing court.
      I do not know whether the Minister can answer my final question, but I hope that somebody can. Have the Government sought the views of the United Kingdom courts about the impact of the increased power of the European Court? The last thing that we want is for our
      838
      courts to become involved in politics or controversy, but the correspondence in the press from learned barristers and QCs shows that the legal set-up in this country is getting worried about the increase in power and scope of the European Court. That worry will grow if the clause is passed allowing the setting up of additional courts in the European Court of Justice. I hope that someone somewhere is keeping in some kind of contact with the British courts and what they think. I do not mean what they think about their own rights and responsibilities. People are always anxious to hold on to their little bit of power and responsibility.
      Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend talks of asking what our courts think, but they are now subordinate. They have no more right to say what they think than the corporal who is ordered to do something by his commanding officer.
      Mr. Taylor: That is certainly true as things now stand. Our courts are clearly subject to the European Court of Justice, but only within the interpretation of the treaty of Rome. Another treaty is now being proposed under which our courts will be subordinate to the European Court. Surely it would be interesting to know what our courts think, not just in terms of their wishing to keep their little bit of power and authority but in terms of the rights of British people. Happily, I have never appeared before a court, but I have gained the impression that our courts are as much concerned with the rights of British people as with implementing justice, chasing crime, and so on. They are the guardians of the rights and liberties of the people. Our judges and others must have some views about this. I hope that the Government are consulting them because in this minor part of this very important new Bill I see a fundamental change, creating a whole new treaty and giving a new court power to implement that treaty in any way that it thinks fit.
      I believe that this represents a huge diminution in the rights and obligations of the British people and in the right of Parliament and the British courts to protect them. It is wrong to suggest that things should never change, because things must change, but Britain has been marked by having a Parliament that can protect the people. We have a Parliament that has fought for justice and courts which have defended the freedom and liberties of our people. That was certainly eroded by the implementation of the treaty of Rome and the extension of the powers of the European Court of Justice. Before we take another major step forward towards a new additional treaty of Rome and new additional courts to implement points of law, we should stop and think whether it will make life better in any way and whether it will safeguard our freedom and liberty. To have these decisions made by foreign courts composed mainly of people whose experience of the law is in a wholly different tradition will simply take decision making further from the British people. Some people may say better and some may say worse, but their tradition is certainly not the same as ours. We should think extremely carefully.
      I hope that hon. Members will probe the Government so that we can at least tell the British people what is happening. We may not stop it this time, but let us hope that by telling people what is going on and what has happened to their liberties and freedoms we shall at least stop a further grave mistake, such as the one which the Government are making tonight.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It was an important constitutional event when you decided to call amendment No. 1, Sir Paul. It is no accident that the debate which the calling of that amendment initiated has exploded into a major constitutional discussion.
      The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) would reduce by one the provisions of the Single European Act, which by this Bill are included in the definition of the treaties and the Community treaties in the European Communities Act 1972. I may be mistaken in my opinion that the Government have not introduced the Bill as a mere act of supererogation. It is not a superfluous act on their part to provide the House with something with which to amuse itself during the summer months. They would not have introduced the Bill if they had not considered that it was necessary to enable them to make the treaty which they have made to the implementation of the duties which they had undertaken in signing that treaty. We must presume that they have included in the Bill all those provisions of the Single European Act that are necessary to validate in effect in practice their adherence to that Act as a Government.
      9 pm
      In international law and relations the Government have hound themselves to the observance of that instrument, but in order to be able to do so, consistently with the law of the United Kingdom — just as in 1972 in order to accede to the European Community they had to define those treaties and make provision through section 2 of the 1972 Act — they must now come before Parliament and ask it to include within that definition of the 1972 Act certain provisions of the Single European Act.
      If the amendment is carried. it will remove one of those certain provisions which will no longer be understood when the terms "the treaties" and "the Community treaties" are construed in future. This is no laughing matter. Indeed, we are engaged in something similar to what has been occupying the United States Congress in discussing the extradition treaty which their Government had entered into but which their Government must ask the United Kingdom to alter by agreement, presumably, as Congress has declined to legislate on the domestic law of the United States in order to give effect to the agreement which had been reached between the two sovereign Governments.
      If we decide to accept the amendment we shall remove one of those certain provisions, and the Government will need to notify the European Community that to this extent they will he unable to comply with the provisions of the Single European Act. Therefore, if hon. Members think that this matter can be allowed to go without a Division by any person who is serious about the constitutional powers of this House, I ask them to think again. When we consider this amendment we have power in our hands over the Government to limit the exercise of the treaty-making prerogative of the Crown.
      With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that we are engaged in the business of ratification, although I am open to correction. Ratification is a different process altogether whereby the Government are assured of the general—
      Mr. Robert Jackson: The treaty is a multilateral organisation, unlike the bilateral treaty between the United States and Britain that the right hon.
      840
      Gentleman has described. Will he speculate about the practical consequences if we in the House were to vote in the sense that he suggests and every other member stale were to decide to proceed to establish the new arrangement as proposed?
      Mr. Powell: It will be interesting if the hon. Gentleman intervenes later to push that speculation further. I am concerned with the consequences upon the adherence of the United Kingdom to the Single European Act. The Government's view—this stands upon the face of the Bill—is that for the United Kingdom validity to assent to the Single European Act it is necessary for this and other provisions of that Act to be written into the law of the United Kingdom by means of this Bill.
      It is an interesting speculation exactly how the Government would get themselves out of the scrape that would result, but it is a real scrape and it is no use the House saying that it has no control over the domestic consequences of the external commitments into which the Government enter.
      I know that we are only permitted to allude by way of imperfect analogy to the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Nevertheless, the House has, in effect, cocked a snook at the Convention on Human Rights, the Commission and the court by the decisions which it has come to in the face of Government proposals in the matter of corporal punishment. That is a bagatelle compared with what is happening here. We are at the heart of the matter. It would be valuable if the Minister, when she replies to the debate, could explain exactly what effects upon citizens subject to the law of the United Kingdom this provision will have if the provision is, as the Bill proposes, included in the definition in the 1972 Act.
      What we are clearly doing is deciding on the application of a part of the Single European Act within this realm. Before the House decides whether to assent to that, it should be told clearly how those who in the United Kingdom are subject to the United Kingdom law will be affected by the provision which the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Southend, East will eliminate. I leave that there having put on record the fact that it is a solemn decision which we are about to take. If, when the question is put, there are tellers available, it will be no use hon. Members who do not go into the Lobby saying that they have no power to override the treaty-making prerogative of the Crown. They have, in so far as that treaty-making prerogative is exercised with a view to altering the rights of the citizen here inside the United Kingdom.
      I turn from that to the kind of legislation that we are achieving if we allow the provision to be included in those definitions. That brings me to article 4—articles 4 and 12 cohere to a certain extent, but I refer to article 4 of the Single European Act to which we are assenting.
      We are not assenting to article 4 in the way in which we assent to provisions of an Act of Parliament. Although, as I have already demonstrated, article 4 will have its consequences for the subjects of the Queen inside the realm, we are not altering the law; we are changing a provision in a treaty. But the effect of it is equivalent to the making of new law.
      Let us see how we are going about our business. It is a very grim business that you will find, Mr. Armstrong, when one is engaged in legislation by way of treaty amendment rather than by making Bills and examining

      841
      them in principle and in detail in both Houses of Parliament. I have done my best, as I am sure have hon. Members, to study article 4. We find immediately, as the hon. Member for Southend, East discovered, that we do not know whether we are assenting to the setting up of an additional court of the European Coal and Steel Community, as it happens, in article 4, or two courts, or any number of courts.
      It is inconceivable that a Government would dare to bring to the House a piece of legislation to set up a court, and that when we had read the legislation we could not possibly decide whether it gave power to set up one or two courts or any number of courts. We gather from a verbal expression to which the amendment of the hon. Member for Southend, East draws attention that there is a possibility of a plurality of courts.
      By legislating by an amendment of treaty we are legislating in a fog on matters of substantial importance. It is a matter of substantial importance whether we as members of the European Community have to support the bureaucracy and top-hamper of one court, two courts or an unlimited pullution of junior courts or courts attached to the European Court of Justice. [Interruption.] I do not know whether any hon. Member dissented or objected to my use of the term "pullution". It seems to me to be perfectly appropriate to a process of multiplication which may be within the terms of this Bill.
      Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman has great experience of this issue. I should be grateful if he could tell me why this part of the final Act comes under provisions amending the treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community. Does this court have reference only to the European Coal and Steel Community or is it likely to have other effects? This is the final Act and the provisions of the final Act. The Bill is the Bill, and what is contained in that is the law of the land. The Bill could go rather wider than this final Act.
      Mr. Powell: What fun this is. We are amending the law of the land by including in definitions in the European Communities Act 1972 various amendments of amendments, amendments by reference to parts of various treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party. It is not just legislation by reference: it is legislation by amendment of treaty by reference. That is what is happening and it produces some entertaining effects, one of which the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has drawn to our attention, namely, that one has to look at article 11 as well as article 4 in order to find out what is going on, in order to add courts under the treaty of Rome to courts under the European Coal and Steel Community.
      Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman is helping the House enormously by unravelling the meaning of these many treaty articles relating to clause 2. We are still not sure whether the court is a single court in the sense of being at the level of a High Court which can pullulate different chambers of justices. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it remarkable that any Government of Her Majesty the Queen, who has courts in Britain, should come to the House with an almost indigestible series of pieces of legal jargon and without an accompanying White Paper that expounds clearly that which is intended?
      Mr. Powell: It could be that the clear exposition of what is intended would have been inconvenient, or is that an unworthy thought that entered my mind? I am glad to be assured that I am helping the House, and I assure the House that I am being helped by the different interjections, including the interjection by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The hon. Gentleman raised a difficult point for a non-lawyer: when is a court not a court? Since he asks for it, my understanding of the matter is that a court can sit in different sections if it wants to, or if its rules permit that, but that that does not make additional courts in the way that we are providing for additional courts by this amendment of the treaty in article 4.
      As I understand it—and any one of us could well be wrong—in article 4 we are creating something that is not a court of justice of the treaty of Rome, whether sitting in one piece or in different pieces, but a court subordinate to it in one particular, and additional to it in other respects. That is what I understand to be happening. What a predicament it is for us to discover when we are legislating—and we are legislating, though indirectly—that we have great difficulty in finding out on the face of the Bill what the legislation is possibly about. It is extraordinary for us to have a Bill that discloses none of the changes in the law that will be made if we accept the Bill.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be saying, for the purposes of debate, that, for convenience, we should refer to the additional court as the lower European court. However, is not the right hon. Gentleman incorrect in saying that the lower European court is a subsidiary of what is known as "the Court of Justice"? Article 32d makes it clear that there is no appeal from the lower court to the "Court of Justice" in the way that we have an appeal to the House of Lords. There is only an appeal on a point of law. Therefore, while the lower court is a subsidiary court, it is not a subsidiary in the way that we understand that term in this country.
      Mr. Powell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has construed correctly paragraph 1 of new article 32d in article 4 of the Single European Act. I want to leave that point after drawing attention to one other impermissible vagueness in what we are doing by making that amendment. The paragraph to which the hon. Gentleman referred mentions
      "certain classes of action or proceeding"
      that are to come before the new court. So we are asked to assent to the setting up of these courts attached to the Court of Justice and they are to deal with
      "certain classes of action or proceeding".
      We are not told what
      "certain classes of action or proceeding"
      there are. No Government would dream of bringing before the House a Bill that left so substantial a matter so vague. That brings me directly to article 12.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: As this is meant to help people to go to the court, does the right hon. Gentleman, who has obviously studied the articles, know what is meant by a "natural" person who can go to the court? I have asked the Library, but it cannot find any trace of a definition in case law of "natural or legal persons" as opposed to an unnatural person.
      Mr. Powell: Endeavouring to construe from the context, I read on and found a reference to
      "Member states of … Community Institutions"
      and thought that perhaps they were the unnatural persons implicit in the wording to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Whether I am right or wrong and whether the hon. Gentleman's question is material or not, these are certainly matters that we would need to have cleared up if, in any proper legislative context, we were making new law, as we shall undoubtedly be making new law if we leave the Bill as it stands.
      Mr. Budgen: Could it be that, because continental law is seen so much as the handmaiden of the executive, that, as we approached a united Europe and as such political doctrines as convergence require greater intervention and a more effective attitude of interference by the European court, so it is envisaged that further courts may need to be set up, including, for example, "the convergence court", rather as we have our own Restrictive Practices Court?
      Mr. Powell: I see nothing in the wording that would exclude the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I listened with great sympathy and agreement to earlier interventions by the hon. Gentleman on the radical difference in the concept of courts of justice within the framework of the EEC, and between the continental tradition and our own. Indeed, that is one of the grounds for my fundamental and instinctive detestation of the United Kindgom's adherence to the European Community. However, I am allowing hon. Members to tempt me into greater prolixity than I had intended, and so I shall hasten to article 12.
      Mr. Marlow: I probably did not make my point clear the first time. I understand that article 4 enables the Community, through unanimity, to establish a supplementary court and to attach a further court to the European Court of Justice. But the Bill gives power to any courts established by the Community at any stage and at any later date. The Bill is therefore much wider than the European final Act.
      Mr. Powell: I share the hon. Gentleman's alarm at the expression "any" in the Bill. Indeed, the hon. Member for Southend, East has tabled an amendment to remove it. That expression certainly implies a laxity of use of the power that we are conveying, and the possibility of a considerable multiplication of courts.
      I must return to the subject of article 12. We have been greatly helped by the means of discovering where title III of the statute referred to in the new paragraph to be inserted in the treaty of Rome by means of article 12 is to be located. However, the trouble remains that we are creating a new kind of delegated legislation. We are delegating, admittedly under certain conditions, to the Council of Ministers the right not just to make European law — the Council of Ministers is undoubtedly the legislature of the Community as it stands—but to alter treaties. Therefore, it is a delegation of the right of legislation by the exercise of treaty-making power.
      During our proceedings on the 1972 Bill I remarked that as a Tory I was tender of the royal prerogative but that it had never occurred to me that even a Conservative Government would introduce legislation to make possible legislation by prerogative. Of course, it is legislation by prerogative of treaty-making that is here being delegated. Thus we have the monstrosity of the delegation by this provision of a form of legislation which is incompatible
      844
      with the principles and spirit of our constitution. For the sake of greater completeness we should no doubt have an amendment that moves out article 11 as well as article 4. But when the House is seized of this matter, I hope that it will recognise that it has in its hands, if only for a few hours, the power to reassert the sovereignty of the House as against the Government's use of the treaty-making prerogative of the Crown.
      It is no small business that we are about in debating this amendment, and I hope that not only the debate but the outcome will be worthy of the magnitude of the issue.
      Mr. Butterfill: My reading of the situation is somewhat different from that of other hon. Members. With my much briefer experience of the House, I am obviously loth to question the greater experience of other hon. Members, such as the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell).
      However, it would seem that we are not creating a new court. We are admittedly creating a subsidiary court, or possibly courts, but we are doing so only in accordance with the first paragraph of article 4 or 11, which lays down the circumstances in which those courts can be created, and gives the ground rules. Such a court can be created only at the request of the European Court of Justice, and then only after consulting the Commission and the European Parliament and by the unanimous resolution of the Council of Ministers.
      The dangers of some amazing new court with amazing new powers emerging have been grossly over-stressed, because the court will not have new powers. It will not have any powers which are not possessed already by the European Court. The European Court interprets the treaties. The only new powers which any court, including the European Court, could have would be those which arose from changes in the treaties. We are considering the extent to which this legislation may amend those treaties.
      Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend is wrong. The treaty does not envisage a static situation. It lays down a large number of principles—not all of which are consistent with each other — by which the European Community may proceed. My hon. Friend cannot, therefore, say that we are talking about the interpretation of the treaty at any one moment. We are discussing the interpretation of a living system of law.
      Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope to deal with that later.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Butterfill: I am sorry, but I must continue. I shall give way later if I do not deal adequately with the point which my hon. Friend wishes to make.
      We are concerned with the interpretation of the treaties and the extent to which they may themselves be living and changing. We must examine the contents of the Bill. We must consider the extent to which the Bill gives force of law to the Single European Act.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) gave the impression that we were being asked to approve the whole of the Single European Act. That does not seem to be so, on my reading of the Bill. I believe that the Bill gives approval only to parts of the Single European Act and then only for the purposes of section 6 of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. That gives rise to a rather nice position.
      Article 33 of the Single European Act states:

      845
      "The Act will enter into force on the first day of the month following that in which the instrument of ratification is deposited of the last Signatory State to fulfil that formality."
      I am not sure how we formally ratify in that way. We certainly shall not be formally ratifying the Single European Act in that way this evening. If we do not ratify the Act in its totality in that way, possibly the Act will never come into force. The first day of the month following ratification might never arrive. Perhaps that is what the signatories to the Act intend.
      This evening we are ratifying certain sections of that Act which are innocuous and fulfil a useful purpose—that of aiding the work of the European Court, of reducing the congestion which occurred as a result of the request to clarify the treaties and of providing for a subsidiary body to assist in the work of that court. To that extent, it is wholly—
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Bill Walker: I am not a lawyer, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the long title and its final few words:
      "approves the Single European Act".
      Is that not what the debate is about this evening?
      Mr. Butterfill: Of course those words are in the long title, and to that extent it would have been possible for the Bill to contain that provision, but it does not go that far. No clause, as far as I understand it, fulfils that function. The only clause that actually ratifies the Act in any way is clause 3(4), which does so in relation to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend disputed the proposition that the court was not entitled to a static system of legal exhortations, interdictions and arrangements, but only to a moving one. There is frequent reference in the Single European Act to the European Parliament, yet the original treaty does not provide for a European Parliament. If that is not absolute evidence of a development, however illegal, pray what can be?
      Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend knows full well that he is talking about semantics—
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, it is real.
      Mr. Butterfill: The use of the words "European Assembly" has no real meaning. We may call a Parliament a Parliament in this country, but in France our equivalent is called an Assembly and in America it is called a Congress. It is a question of semantics and has no legal significance. If people want to argue about what they call the thing that I choose to call the European Parliament, and which this Bill, if we pass it tonight—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I allowed the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) to reply to the intervention, but he is now going wide of the amendment.
      Mr. Butterfill: I had hoped that I was confining my remarks to the subject of our debate. If, in responding to an intervention, I strayed from the path that you would wish me to follow, Mr. Armstrong, I apologise.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am following my hon. Friend's remarks with great interest. I ask him to consider honestly what he is saying. He said that the provisions of the Bill
      846
      were innocuous. Does he think that the inclusion of a legal commitment by the United Kingdom to go with the harmonising of indirect taxation is innocuous? I accept his arguments for and against it, but I hope that he will accept—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going down a road that is not concerned with the amendment.
      Mr. Butterfill: As I thought I said earlier, my interpretation of the Bill is that it confines itself to certain fairly narrow elements of the Single European Act and does not seek to approve or ratify the Act as a whole.
      Mr. Budgen rose—
      Mr. Butterfill: I have concluded my remarks. If my hon. Friend wishes to make a point, I am sure that he will be given the opportunity to do so.
      Mr. Deakins: I thought that the debate on which we embarked some time ago about the extra court would be relatively short, with the Minister in due course answering a number of questions put by right hon. and hon. Members. However, it has developed, rather unusually, into a major constitutional debate, and that shows the House at its best. We have discovered that even a matter which, on the whole, seems to be relatively innocuous prima facie has implications and repercussions that go much wider than the mere wording of the change that we are asked to bring about in British domestic legislation.
      I begin by asking the Minister to clear up the issue of how many European courts exist. I shall make an attempt myself to do so, and I hope that the Committee will bear with me. Why was it necessary in the Single European Act, and why, therefore, is it necessary in the Bill, to refer to articles which amend the EEC treaty, the ECSC treaty and the European Atomic Energy Authority treaty? I thought that the three basic treaties were combined some years ago into what was supposed to be the single European Community treaty.
      I am strengthened in my thinking by the treaty of Rome, a copy of which I have to hand. On page 146 is one of the protocols that is attached to the treaty, and article 2 refers to the European Court of Justice. Article 3 states:
      "The jurisdiction which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Authority confer upon the Court of Justice shall be exercised, in accordance with those Treaties, by a single Court of Justice composed and appointed as provided in Articles 165 and 167 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and in Articles 137 to 139 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community."
      For some reason there is no mention in that article of the European Coal and Steel Community. It makes it clear, however, that there was from that time a single European Court of Justice. The following articles, which I shall not weary the Committee by repeating, mention a single European Court of Justice. Unless the Minister says something different—I hope that she will not—when she replies, we must work on the assumption that there is but one European Court of Justice.
      Another question for the Minister is why the European Court of Justice and the subsidiary court mentioned in the Single European Act are now to be brought into our domestic legislation by clause 2. Why was this intention not mentioned in any of the summit communiqués of last

      847
      year? I confess that the first moment that I realised that there was to be an addition to the European Court came when we had the Single European Act, and then with the Bill. The provision seems to have been inserted in the Single European Act, as a result of the intergovernmental conference or conferences of the summer and autumn of 1985.
      That happened with remarkably little publicity. I do not think that one of the instructions given to the intergovernmental conference or conferences by the summits in March and June of 1985 was to talk about creating a single internal market and improving decision-making, for example. It was not an instruction from the Heads of Government at those meetings that the European Court should be empowered to have a subsidiary court. I do not know where the proposition cropped up.
      The purpose of the subsidiary court is unclear. I have armed myself with a copy of the proceedings of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that took place on 7 May. I am glad that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is on the Treasury Front Bench because she went before the Select Committee on that day to answer questions about the Single European Act. I am no longer, much to my regret, a member of that excellent Committee. The members of it, however, did an extremely good job, and one of them asked the Minister several questions about the legislation affecting the European Court and the new subsidiary court.
      Question No. 180 was asked by an hon. Member:
      "Could I just ask you now about the Court of Justice? The Single European Act enables the court of first instance to be attached to the Court of Justice. It is purely permissive, it is not mandatory. You, Minister"—
      the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker)—
      "appear to have implied in the Second Reading debate that the work of this additional court would he limited to dealing with internal Community staff matters. Could you confirm that this is certainly the intention of Her Majesty's Government because the Treaty certainly is by no means exclusive on this point?"
      The hon. Lady replied:
      "Indeed, it could go"—
      the remit of the new court—
      "slightly wider, but that would be at the discretion of the European Court of Justice. The problem which has occurred is this: the workload of the Court of Justice has increased threefold over the last decade. Some half of the workload involves staff cases which are not legally significant, I am informed, but are of course very time-consuming because they deal with the matters of individuals. There is no question of increasing the powers of the Court, but it is a question of the redistribution of the workload and the court of first instance would be attached to the European Court of Justice. It will take on some of its work at the behest of the European Court of Justice"—
      I am not sure about the word "some"—
      "but it will not take on new work—
      I do not know whether the words "new work" mean work which comes direct from outside the European legal system, such as it is, or whether they mean new work which comes from the European Court itself. It is a bit vague.
      The Minister continued:
      "and it will not have new powers, any powers of its own; it is part of the European Court of Justice."
      I shall continue with that point because it is to the Committee's advantage that we understand what the hon. Lady said and what queries were raised. The questions are
      848
      pertinent to the matters raised by all hon. Members regarding the amendments and clause 2. The hon. Member went on to ask, in question No. 181:
      "As I understand it, it is hoped that the new court will reduce the main court's workload by dealing with actions by Community staff against the institutions employing them and also, as I understand it, in cases raising complex issues of fact, specially competition and anti-dumping cases. I just wondered whether this was so. Is that the intention of Her Majesty's Government'?"
      The hon. Lady replied:
      "The point about the court of first instance is that it only has those powers which are delegated to it under the European Court of Justice, it has none of its own."
      That was a repetition of the previous answer. She continued, and I emphasise:
      "We are awaiting detailed proposals from the European Court of Justice as to what subjects will be dealt with or are suggested to be dealt with by the court of first instance."
      Therefore, as of 7 May— the hon. Lady may have further information for us tonight—the Government did not know what subjects would be dealt with by the subsidiary court. I do not wish to demean the court by calling it a "subsidiary court-. It seems to be a shorthand way of describing it. It does not have a name at present.
      The Minister later told the Foreign Affairs Committee:
      "But in all probability it is … cases which involve that time-consuming fact-finding and those of minor legal importance which currently account for over half the cases that come before the Court."
      She said, and I stress:
      "Other work which might be involved is in the industrial and commercial field which simply entails unravelling the most complicated issues which take so much time but which do not actually have a final bearing on the outcome except for the information which they supply."
      That suggests that the Government are not clear about the relationship between the subsidiary court and the Court of Justice, apart from not being clear what powers it will have and what work it will do.
      Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this extended court could be especially useful if the EEC countries agreed to a major policy of sanctions against South Africa? As we all remember from the previous period of sanctions against Rhodesia, it is often extremely difficult to ascertain the facts. No doubt, it would be useful to have another court to look into those problems.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Deakins: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's point because I am not in charge of the Bill. The Minister may be able to help, if she has more information than she was able to provide the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on 7 May. We shall know a little later.
      Is this subsidiary court necessary? I do not mean "necessary" in terms of work, because we still do not know what work it will do or what powers it will have. I mean "necessary" in terms of the amended treaty of Rome. Section 11 of the convention on certain institutions common to the European Communities concerned the European Court of Justice. Article 4(2) stated:
      "To this end, on the date when the single Court of Justice referred to in Article 3 takes up its duties: (a) Article 32 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community shall be repealed and the following provisions substituted therefore".
      I confess that I had not realised when we were debating these matters in 1972 that one article appears to refer to two of the basic treaties and another to the third of the basic treaties, but in a different light. I should have

      849
      thought that the aim in unifying the Community was to have one form of justice and common institutions and rules. New article 32 stated:
      "The Court"—
      the single European Court of Justice—
      "shall consist of seven Judges.
      The Court shall sit in plenary session. It may, however"—
      the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and others were concerned about this—
      "form chambers, each consisting of three or five Judges, either to undertake certain preparatory inquiries or to adjudicate on particular categories of cases in accordance with rules laid down for these purposes."
      If there is already power for the single European Court to divide up its judges so that they can make preliminary inquiries and do the fact-finding, devilling and donkey work, if I may use that non-legal expression, which the Minister of State mentioned in her answers on 7 May to questions 180 and 181, is it necessary to have a subsidiary court?
      Mr. Cash: The answer may lie to some extent in a problem which has concerned the interpretation of the treaty for some time, known as the contentious jurisdiction of the court. Effectively, this provision in combination with article 12 provides a means whereby the vacuum in the ability to enhance the jurisdiction of the court can be filled, rather like the provisions of article 235 of the treaty. That may have something to do with the problem which faces us.
      Mr. Deakins: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's superior legal advice. I am certainly not a lawyer, as he is.
      Mr. Budgen: I suggest that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) attaches insufficient importance to the difference between the continental inquisitorial system of justice and our adyersarial system. In our system it is not the judge's duty to adduce evidence and find out the truth. He simply sits and listens to such evidence as is brought before him and makes up his mind on that evidence. The continental system is different. The judges believe that there is something called objective truth. They go out and try to find it and they inquire about it.
      Mr. Foulkes: The French.
      Mr. Budgen: Not especially the French. However, the same system extends to most of the continental systems. It may well be that they are envisaging systems by which they will set up preliminary inquiries so that, for the sake of argument, if they are inquiring into the power to control and enforce any future EEC sanctions against South Africa, they will set up an inquiry quite different from the inquiry we set up to look into that control. It would be necessary to have some form of subsidiary court which would sus out the information and it would then go forward for further consideration by another part of the court.
      Mr. Deakins: I accept what were probably strictures from the hon. Gentleman. I accept his example that the English legal system is very different, as we all know, from the continental system — although I think that the Scottish law has some similarities. However, I do not think that that is necessarily what the Government have in mind or what might happen.
      Mr. Budgen: We do not know. We shall not be told, either.
      Mr. Deakins: No, we do not know. There are analogies in the English legal system. As I understand it — there are are plenty of lawyers in the House who will immediately correct me if I am wrong — normally a superior court will not query the findings of a lower court on matters of fact. We have a system of magistrates courts, for example, and we also have Crown courts and courts of criminal appeal and so on. It is not normal in the English legal system for superior courts to go through the business of fact-finding again. It may be that what they have in mind, although it is the continental system, is the need to have a subsidiary court to find fact.
      My point is that we do not need a subsidiary court to do that work. I appreciate that that work is necessary and that it is time-consuming and boring and so on. However, if the judges can divide themselves into chambers and, presumably, little subsidiary courts in their own right, what need is there for legislation, for the Single European Act and for changes in the basic treaty?
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I would like to think that what the hon. Gentleman says is the full story. I accept that he may be right in saying that there is no need for the Single Act. However, line 4 of article 32(d) refers to
      "a court with jurisdiction to hear and determine at, first instance".
      It seems that what is proposed is something not just to establish the facts but to determine certain classes of action brought by natural persons. I can see problems because in British law we do not have a definition of a natural or unnatural person. The hon. Gentleman would be wrong to think that it is just fact-finding. It provides for the courts to have the power to determine certain classes of action.
      Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman has raised another important point. I accept that the Minister will do her best to answer, but I would have thought that on issues of that sort we might need some strong legal advice, perhaps from the Law Officers. The relationship between the European Court of Justice and the subsidiary court, if it is set up, is not clear. If the hon. Gentleman is right and the subsidiary court has the right to determine matters as well as do the fact-finding and devilling—let us assume that that is the case — is there going to be a right of appeal from a subsidiary court to the European Court of Justice? As far as I know, that is not mentioned.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has hit on a fundamentally important point. He should read article 32. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am sorry that we do not have any Law Officer present on a vital legal issue. It is staggering that on an issue affecting British courts we do not have a single Law Officer in the House. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it states clearly that the right of appeal is only on a point of law. The hon. Gentleman will find that chapter 1, article 4, 32(d) refers to
      "jurisdiction … to determine at first instance, subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Justice on points of law only".
      We are setting up a new subsidiary court which can determine certain classes of issue on which there is an appeal only on points of law. This is a staggering new development in the way in which we determine legal action that affects us all. We are having to discuss it without the presence of any of the Law Officers. We should not proceed until a Law Officer is present.
      Mr Deakins: I leave that to the Chair and the Minister.
      The hon. Gentleman has raised another important point. The Single European Act makes it clear that there is a right of appeal on a point of law—
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Only.
      Mr. Deakins: Indeed. That is in line with the English hierarchical system of courts. One can appeal against sentence, but there is mainly an appeal on a point of law rather than on points of fact—
      Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I wonder whether this will be helpful to the House. This is a complex matter. Some hon. Members are lawyers, and understand this well, but even some of the lawyers feel that it is inappropriate to continue the debate until we have a Law Officer in the House, because I believe that—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the presence of Ministers is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Can you advise us how we can require the attendance of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General? Of course, we do not wish in any way to act improperly in raising this point of order, but if you were able to give us—I do not put it so vulgarly as "a nod and a wink"—a little informal guidance, it would help us in deciding whether it was worth the Committee's while to continue. We have a difficult—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that when he raises such matters the Front Bench may hear, but the presence of a Minster is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Budgen: I understand, but sometimes one finds that the Front Bench benefits from the guidance of the Chair. One of the glories of our constitution is not only that it is unwritten but that sometimes its oddities and difficulties are overcome by a combination of friendliness and informality. If a little guidance were given by the Chair to the Front Bench, we might understand these things a lot better.
      Apart from going for a cup of coffee, I have listened to most of the debate. As far as I can gather, we have had extraordinarily little clear exposition of the hierarchy of the courts. No doubt somebody could instruct us on that —either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. It would be a good thing if that were done. I might be permitted to say, in a sexist way, that it would be a gallant act. It would be a demonstration of the sexist way in which the Law Officers come to the aid of the lady in difficulty.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot refer to a point of order that was not a point of order. Let me reply to the hon. Gentleman's brief intervention. I am heartened by his confidence in the way in which the House is ready to receive my guidance, but the presence of a Minister is not a matter for me. I have no doubt that the Front Bench will have taken note of what has been said.
      Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Is it on the same point of order?
      Mr. Marlow: It is a different point of order.
      We all have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Minister of State. She has a great deal of knowledge, and
      852
      very great communicative skill, but I was wondering, as a result of the last few comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), whether the Minister might like to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us how she intends to deal with some of the more intricate legal matters. Is she considering asking one of the Law Officers to join our debate?
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I should like to draw your attention to clause 2(b), which says that our constituents could be tried and punished. When the Government are proposing the approval of a new court from which there will he no appeal whatever, apart from on a point of law, and our constituents could be punished without the punishment being made clear, in respect of the protection of the general public and our rights and privileges as Members of Parliament, surely that matter affects our privileges as Members of Parliament. Should the matter not be referred to the Committee of Privileges? If we are asked to approve a court which can punish our constituents without any appeal, except on a point of law, a matter of privilege must arise.
      The First Deputy Chairman: That is a matter for debate and the hon. Gentleman should raise it at the appropriate time.
      Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I think I may be able to help the Committee on this point. In evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Minister, in answer to a question from her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) as to the Government's intention, said—
      It being Ten o'clock, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    "That, at this day's sitting, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour."—[Mr. Maude.]

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Spearing: I must apologise. I now understand that my point has already been raised during my short absence from the Chamber. However, it would be helpful for the Committee to know whether the suggestions from the European Court have been received and published. We could then make more progress.
  Mr. Deakins: That is apparently not a point of order; I shall now continue my speech.
  I was following up a point made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) about the hierarchy of the courts. At present there is a single European Court of Justice whose judges can divide themselves into chambers, which I would regard as lesser courts within the scope of the European Court of Justice. Under the proposal, we will set up one, or more than one — and the precise number remains to be clarified by the Minister —subsidiary court whose relationship with the European

  853
  Court of Justice is laid down in the article in the Single European Act. However, the scope for extending the number of subsidiary courts is unlimited.
  Although I do not wish to alarm hon. Members unduly, it is possible to envisage the European Court of Justice being at the apex of a network of courts, many of which could be based in the individual member states of the Community.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there would be a growth of such courts only in response to demand? In other words, the number of courts would be increased only if sufficient cases were being brought.
  Mr. Deakins: I do not deny the hon. Gentleman's point. However, the prospect of that happening scares the living daylights out of me. I am not considering bureaucracy; rather I am thinking about the web which will entangle us more and more and which will affect citizens within the context of an integrated western Europe. I do not want to go into that subject now, as we will debate that later.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman would not want to encourage delay through a long backlog of cases. Would he agree that it would be desirable to have an extension of courts in that circumstance?
  Mr. Deakins: I want to make it clear that I want to reduce the number of cases and the scope of the European Court and limit it until we have changed the relationship between this country and the rest of the Community. I accept that, while the European Court exists and if article 2 is enacted, there will be scope for the European Court, in association with the Council acting unanimously, to extend the Community's legal system downwards. It certainly cannot extend it upwards because it would not be possible to go higher than the one single court at the apex. That is something which should worry the whole House.
  What sort of people will be able to take cases to the subsidiary court? Will individual citizens of member states who are aggrieved at some action of their national Government which might or might not contravene Community law or at an action of a Community institution be able to go to the subsidiary court? There are plenty of lawyers here to advise us. At present, I suspect that the European Court is basically for the use of member states and institutions rather than individuals.
  Mr. Butterfill indicated dissent.
  Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, so I assume—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that individuals can go to the European Court. Will individual people — "natural persons" under the legislation — be able to go to the subsidiary court, and will a network develop of lawyers skilled in the processes of European law to advise people whether to take their cases to the subsidiary court or courts or to the European Court and what their rights are? This may appeal to the lawyers, but is there not a danger of building up a whole new legal network to advise people in Community countries?
  Mr. Foulkes: Has my hon. Friend, with his fertile imagination, considered whether residents of the Channel islands and the Isle of Man, who are British citizens with British passports, could take cases to those courts? There is scope for further consideration there.
  Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend asks an important question to which, I confess, I do not know the answer, not merely because I am not a lawyer but because I am not skilled in the intricacies of this Single European Act. I hope that the Minister will take these questions on board.
  Mr. Spearing: Is not the real position even more serious? The Minister's answer to question No. 181 in the Foreign Affairs Committee, to which my hon. Friend has referred, was that no lawyer and apparently no Government yet know the answer because, as the Minister made plain and as the text of the measure makes rather less than plain, there must be a request from the European Court of Justice. In other words, the answers to germane questions which the House should know before it decides on the amendment, let alone the Bill, rest not with the House or even with national Parliaments or the so-called European Parliament but with the request of the existing European Court of Justice.
  Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend makes his own point and will no doubt wish to make his own speech. I wish people to have whatever rights are available that they need, but if individuals can go to the subsidiary courts as well as to the European Court, matters will be further complicated.
  To make a party political point, the next Labour Government are pledged to certain matters of economic policy which would not be acceptable to Conservative Members—import controls, for example—but which will nevertheless be put to the electorate.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: You cannot do that.
  Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman says that we cannot do that. Within reason, the British Government can do whatever they like. Whether they are breaking international obligations is another matter. Let us assume that there is a limit on the import of German motor cars. At present, an importer can go to the European Court for a declaration that the action of the British Government in imposing import controls was illegal and the court would no doubt pronounce on that. Clearly, it is more expensive to go to the full European Court. In the future, will an aggrieved importer be better advised to go to the subsidiary court? Would that court be able to handle the case, or would the matter have to be referred up to the full court? Again, we do not know and I am not at all sure that the Minister knows.
  Mr. Butterfill: If a future Labour Government banned the import of German motor cars, it would be a direct breach of a treaty obligation into which this country had entered and in which a previous Labour Government played a major part. Presumably, if a future Labour Government wished to do something like that, they would abrogate the treaty rather than breach it.
  Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman's analysis is right, but I doubt whether what he suggests will happen in practice. I do not wish to stray from the narrow remit of the amendment, but some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may prefer to take their chance on that and remain within the EC. We shall return to this matter later.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not only the Labour party but Conservative Members who should study the clause carefully, because under article 20 there is a commitment to converge and harmonise economic policies between member states? There will be nothing to stop any natural or institutional

  855
  person going to the court or getting the Commission to say that our economic policy, whatever it is, does not converge with the policies of other member states.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not go clown that road until we reach that discussion.
  Mr. Deakins: I certainly shall not, Mr. Armstrong. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that the European Court is extremely powerful and that having a subsidiary court will make it even more powerful, for a reason which has not yet been advanced in the debate.
  Mr. Butterlill: Why?
  Mr. Deakins: I shall explain why. I mean that the court is powerful in spreading its tentacles rather than in arrogating to itself, which it cannot do, additional constitutional powers under the statute.
  The European Court will get rid of all the mundane cases which the Minister tells us are clogging up the works. If the top European Court gets rid of all those mundane cases, will it not have much more time to deal with what it would regard as the important cases which, because the court is federalist by nature, will advance the cause of European union? More and more of the court's judgments and time will be spent pontificating on those matters and directing national Governments towards European union. At present, the court is being held back from doing that because it cannot push on to a subsidiary court the minor cases which do not raise major issues of principle of Community law and of the relationship between the institutions, the member states and individual citizens.
  Mr. Marlow: Many hon. Members follow European affairs closely but others do not have a great deal of knowledge about them, and the debate is becoming increasingly intricate and based on the legal aspects—the court, its powers and powers between courts. As the hon. Gentleman has the Floor, will he, perhaps, catch the eye of my hon. Friend the Minister to see whether she will bring a Law Officer before us? Before we go much further, we need a full explanation of the rigours and meanings of the amendment and clause from a Law Officer?
  Mr. Deakins: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is entirely up to the Minister. I hope that the Minister, who, like me, is not a lawyer, is not relying solely on the legal department of the Foreign Office for this debate. In 1982, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee investigated the patriation of the Canadian constitution and we had legal advice from the Foreign Office legal department, not from the Law Officers, which ultimately proved to be completely wrong about the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and Canada. The constitutional advice from the three most distinguished constitutional lawyers whom we had as witnesses was that the Foreign Office legal department was wrong. One may argue that that is merely a dispute between lawyers. We produced two reports which were then produced, almost in evidence, and quoted by judges in the Canadian supreme court which upheld the view of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs which was opposed to the legal advice of the Foreign Office.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Cash: I happened to be adviser on the Canadian provincial case before I entered Parliament. I think that it
  856
  was Professor Marshall's evidence in particular which clinched the whole matter and which I find rather extraordinary. I have a certain sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must weigh that against the fact that there are many eminent lawyers in the Foreign Office and I would not like it to be thought that although I thought that they were wrong on that occasion—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We should get bact to the amendments before the Committee.
  Mr. Deakins: I promised the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) that I would give way to her.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that my hon. Friend the Minister said that the staff cases to which he referred arc not legally significant? They are time-consuming, but they are of great importance to the individuals concerned. Surely it is important that those individuals should get their justice more rapidly.
  Mr. Deakins: Indeed. I accept entirely what the hon. Lady says. When the Minister gave evidence before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs — she was not necessarily pressed on this point, although I was not present—she was unable to give details of the number of cases in recent years. Why there should be so many staff disputes which require legal action makes one's mind boggle. Britain has plenty of disputes between employers and employees but few end up in the courts. They are usually disposed of without the need for legal processes. There must be something wrong with the Community if, every time the staff have a dispute with the management, they have to go through the European Court of Justice. Think of the expense, apart from anything else.
  I want to refer to article 188 of the treaty of Rome, which is mentioned in the Single European Act. Article 188 is short and says:
  "The Statute of the Court of Justice is laid down in the separate Protocol."
  That is annexed to the Treaty. The second paragraph says:
  "The Court of Justice shall adopt its rules of procedure. These shall require the unanimous approval of the Council."
  The Single European Act is seeking to insert into the second paragraph of article 188 some new words, which have already been quoted. I shall quote them again because it is important that the Committee should hear them in mind. They are:
  "The Council may, acting unanimously at the request of the Court of Justice"—
  that is more or less equivalent to what is there at the moment—
  "and after consulting the Commission and the European Parliament, amend the provisions of title III of the statute."
  But what article 12 of the Single European Act does not say is that the existing wording should be deleted.
  This part of the Bill is very much a dog's breakfast. We are being asked to insert, where there are already two minor paragraphs, in article 188 of the Treaty of Rome, a new second paragraph without taking out the old second paragraph. I do not understand how that can happen legally or constitutionally or how those who drafted the Single European Act came to draft that. Some British people may have been involved, but they did not do a good job on that. I am not a lawyer but that is nonsense. How can something he inserted unless something else is pushed to one side, which I presume is the case, or replaced? Obviously the intention of the insertion in article 12 is to

  857
  replace the second paragraph of article 188 of the treaty of Rome. It is not replaced by the wording of the Single European Act.
  Finally, let me deal with the statute in the protocol on page 153 of the treaty of Rome with annexes which I have before me. That is the statute which can be amended by the delegated legislation which the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) mentioned. That is concerned entirely with procedure. I have no objection to courts. In Britain they regulate their own procedure, subject to the Lord Chancellor. The European Court of Justice deals not merely with individuals but with member sovereign Governments and one needs to be careful about the mechanisms for changing rules of procedure.
  Title III, article 21 of the treaty of Rome says:
  "The Court may require the parties to produce all documents and to supply all information which the Court considers desirable. Formal note shall be taken of any refusal."
  The next and important sentence reads:
  "The Court may also require the Member States and institutions not being parties to the case to supply all information which the Court considers necessary for the proceedings."
  That seems to be a fairly draconian provision, but at least it was put in after approval by the national Governments by way of ratification and is a treaty matter. It is embodied in Britain in the European Communities Act 1972.
  We are now handing over our power to control such changes in the rules of procedure not merely to the European Court, but to any subsidiary future courts that it may set up, and those may be unlimited in number. Those courts will be unable to regulate their own procedure and will still have to do it by unanimous opinion of the Council, but the matter will no longer come to this Parliament. It will not come here in the form of a Bill and we shall be entirely dependent on the Government of the day — I make no party political point here — as to whether or not that Government say that such changes in the rules of procedure are matters that this Parliament representing the British people ought to be cognisant of and to have an opportunity to comment upon, even if we do not have a right to approve of them. I hope that at least we will have a right to approve as well.
  Mr. Butterfill: If the hon. Gentleman reads article 4(2), which is the same as article 11(2), he will see that it is only for the purposes of necessary adjustments, necessary for the purposes of paragraph I. Enormous safeguards are built into paragraph I and the hon. Gentleman is making a big fuss about nothing.
  Mr. Deakins: I hope that the hon. Member is right. I am raising the issue because I am worried about it, but if I am wrong and the hon. Gentleman is right, I am sure that the Minister will take legal advice and put me right.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman mentions one area in which the European Court can act and in which our courts cannot. That is to say, it can demand evidence from institutions or from national Governments within the Community. During my days in uniform I used to go to courts martial from time to time and there were various rules of evidence which were important for an individual's freedom and justice. One of those rules was that hearsay evidence was not acceptable. What is to stop this institution flipping through some late night sitting as part of the quid pro quo with other Community Governments over something about us getting back our rebate? Because things are bogging down in the Community and the court does not have as much power as it would like to have or because it wants to investigate this, that or the other, it could take hearsay evidence. What is to prevent that sort of monstrosity from taking place?
  Mr. Deakins: I am not in charge of the Bill and I cannot answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). The Minister must take note of these points.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the matter of rule changes having to be necessary? The only determinant of what is necessary is the Council of Ministers. There is no question of the Council being limited by paragraph 1 because it acts in accordance with paragraph 1.
  Mr. Butterfill: Has my hon. Friend read the paragraph?
  Mr. Taylor: Indeed I have, and I have it in front of me. The Council of Ministers, and only the Council of Ministers, decides what is necessary for a rule change. Neither the House of Commons nor member states have any jurisdiction. Rule changes are a matter for the Council of Ministers and nobody else.
  Mr. Deakins: It is not just a matter for the Council of Ministers, and that is another of my objections to the provision in the Single European Act and therefore to clause 2 of the Bill. In future, unlike the present position under article 188 of the treaty of Rome, the Commission will have the right to be consulted and to put its oar in. So will the so-called European Parliament, but not this Parliament. This is another derogation of the sovereignty of this Parliament. I accept that it is derogation in a minor respect, but principles do not depend on measurements. The principle is vital and one which we should seek to safeguard. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us when she replies to the debate.

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Mr. George Robertson: As this is a Committee stage I think that it would be appropriate for me to intervene briefly from the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: It is a carve up.
  Mr. Robertson: I can tell the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that if there is a carve-up, it appears to be taking place among him and his colleagues. I am a free agent and, as the Opposition spokesman, I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he has not been involved in any private discussion to keep out my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) who is the only hon. Member with any direct experience of these courts? Bearing in mind the fact that we have not had one Law Officer here all day—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not casting reflections on the Chair.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: No, not in any way.
  The First Deputy Chairman: There has been no kind of arrangement as far as I am concerned.
  Mr. Robertson: Who is called in a debate and who chooses to intervene are not matters for me. Some important issues have been raised in this important debate and it is only right and proper that all hon. Members who wish to take part in a Committee stage should have the opportunity to do so. I have sat here from the beginning of the debate and have listened carefully to all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. I have as much right as any other hon. Member to make an intervention.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I hope that he will not think me out of order in saying that I am surprised that he is intervening at this a stage when some Back-Bench Members still wish to speak on these important amendments. Front-Bench spokesmen usually wait to hear what Back Benchers have to say before making their own comments.
  Mr. Robertson: It is incredible that some hon. Members seem to be suggesting that they will be teaching their grandmothers how to suck eggs. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is a good colleague of mine, has considerable experience in these matters and could teach me a great deal in areas of detail. I hope that he will be able to participate in the debate. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) —Newham plays an important part in our debates—and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), not to mention the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), all wish to make contributions.
  However, it is open to me to come in at any stage. There has been no concordat or agreement—
  Mr. Cash: In view of the circumstances in which I find myself, I should like to put it on record that I shall not be engaged in a filibuster. I am here to make some serious points and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to jump in to prevent me from saying a few things that are based on a small amount of experience in these matters.
  Mr. Robertson: How can a be suggested that I, as an Opposition spokesman, am seeking to prevent a Conservative Back Bencher from speaking?
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The usual channels.
  Mr. Robertson: I am not a member of the usual channels.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is so.
  Mr. Robertson: I am not a member of any usual channels. I have sat through the whole debate and I wish to intervene at this stage.
  Mr. Taylor: The dirty tricks department.
  Mr. Robertson: No, there is no question of—
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: No. I intend to make, and have always intended to make, a brief contribution. A number of lengthy speeches have been made and I hope that we shall be able to exhaust the important issues involved in the debate. I hope that there will be adequate opportunity for everyone who wishes to participate in the debate to do so. I am sure that it is not the intention of the Chair or anybody else to curtail this or any other debate. There are another seven groups of amendments to come. I am sure that it will not have escaped hon. Members that if a deal had been done to prevent discussion of one group of amendments, debate could easily be prolonged on other groups of amendments.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I will give way for the last time.
  Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has just implied that there are several other groups of amendments, and that we could debate this subject during our discussion of them. I am not quite sure why he said that. This group of amendments is massively important and concerns the whole judicial future of the United Kingdom. The surrender of sovereignty by some of our courts may be involved. After only four Back-Bench speeches, why does he, as Opposition spokesman, feel that it is time to intervene in the debate?
  Mr. Robertson: It is obvious that the amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Southend, East that he opened the debate, and that hon. Members have been free to speak at any juncture and to do so repeatedly. If the closure is moved after I or the Minister speaks, the Opposition will oppose it. There is no question of us being involved in any filibuster. I cannot believe that the Government would wish to terminate a debate on such an important issue at this stage.
  Hon. Member after hon. Member has pointed out that. as the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said, we are in a fog about the Government's intentions in this crucial area. There is no explanatory White Paper, and no opportunity for the Committee to consider in detail some of these important issues, and so we have to rely on the reports of the Scrutiny committee. However, one such very important report was published only this morning, thus giving hon. Members no time to reach any conclusion. Consequently, we have to ask the Minister questions concerning fundamental points of legislation relating to our consitutional future, yet there are no answers.

  861
  10.30 pm
  Hon. Members feel frustrated because questions are asked about an incredibly complicated Bill, which depends on the Single European Act being brought into force—the Act itself being dependent on the treaties party to the EC — and yet they receive no real answer. My hon. Friend the member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) made some detailed and valid points, yet they are not likely to be answered to the satisfaction of hon. Members. We are ill served by the institutions of Government when Parliament is faced by a major constitutional Bill, which was trailed as being a very significant and important Bill, and yet there is no explanatory memorandum of any consequence and no white paper to explain the legal and constitutional details that lie at the very heart of it.
  We shall have to consider other aspects in some detail later.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is also regrettable that no SDP Member is present for the debate?
  Mr. Robertson: That may well be regrettable, but it is hardly surprising that those who protest the loudest about their conviction concerning the necessity for a united Europe and about their commitment to the ideal of the EC are rarely, if ever, here. Indeed, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who is, I understand, the principal Front Bench spokesman for the Liberal party on Scottish and European affairs, is the sole representative of the alliance during many of our long and somewhat esoteric debates. Out of the massed ranks of the alliance, he alone should be congratulated on his commitment to the European cause —
  Sir Russell Johnston: I hope that I will be permitted to express my warm, heartfelt appreciation of those tributes. I speak on European, as well as Scottish affairs.
  Mr. Robertson: As a former Scottish affairs spokesman I can see the link between Scottish and European affairs.
  Mr. Budgen: Does not the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) think, on reflection that he was rather ungenerous to the SDP. One of the courageous characteristics of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is the persistent way in which he expounds the need for greater expenditure in the EEC and the wonderful way that he regrets the niggardly limits on VAT-based expenditure in the EEC. He wants that to go to 2 per cent. as quickly as possible. Is the hon. Gentleman not ashamed of the way—
  The Second Deputy Chairman (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I find it impossible to relate those remarks to the amendment.
  Mr. Robertson: Those remarks were irrelevant to the amendment. One might say that the SDP was irrelevant to the amendment, to the Bill and to the House. If a representative of the SDP were present tonight, he and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber might not agree on thier view of the amendment. However, that should lie upon the Table.
  We need to know whether we are talking about the European Court, which we know, or about a number of subsiduary, lower tier courts as part of the new structure. We must have a genuine answer. We have had an interesting debate so far. Who knows how interesting it will become?
  862
  I studied the Foreign Affairs Committee report to see whether I could find the answer. Both Government and Opposition Members have to rely on deliberations by the House of Lords and House of Commons Scrutiny Committees. One seeks in vain for the answers to important questions.
  Mr. Spearing: In case there is any mistake, the hon. Gentleman should know that the Select Committee on European Legislation was not able to examine the Single European Act treaty, or anything relating to it, because its terms of reference did not allow it to do so. I add that, because it might be thought that we abrogated our duty to the House.
  Mr. Robertson: I would not dream of suggesting that my hon. Friend abrogated his duty. I recognise the careful distinctions between the remits of the House of Lords and House of Commons Committees. The Government have made a commitment to examine our scrutiny.
  Paragraph 30 of the Foreigh Affairs Committee report takes us some way down the road suggested by the hon. Member for Southend, East. I disagree with the emphasis that he chose for the debate, but he explored serious and important issues. There are some safeguards in the system. Some of the questions he asked deserve clear answers. He suggested that some of the court decisions might pre-empt decisions by the European Council, even where unanimity has been specifically inserted as a result of the negotiations at the Luxembourg summit. The court might, somehow, take the power away from the politicians and, by a process of interpretation, seek to impose upon nation states within the EEC obligations that they would not otherwise have chosen.
  Paragraph 30 of the report states:
  "Article 18 of the Single European Act provides (in new Article 100A(4) of the EEC Treaty) that a Member State may apply separate national provisions on grounds of major national needs, hut"—
  I emphasise this point—
  "also enables the Commission or another Member State to take that Member State to the Court of Justice on grounds that it is 'making improper use' of this provision."
  The hon. Member for Southend, East has hit on an important and far-reaching aspect of the Single European Act. If the Community did go in that direction, it would be against the very spirit of the Luxembourg agreement. Indeed, it would go against the specific guarantees that the Prime Minister gave the House regarding the way in which these degrees of unanimity on the reserved areas would operate.
  Although we are now in the area of the purely hypothetical — and undoubtedly the Minister will say that we are hypothesising about something that will never happen and that, after all, we have the Prime Minister's guarantee that none of this will happen—the fact that the Committee reached that conclusion should at least make hon. Members, even those in favour of the reforms, stop and wonder whether this step is being taken without a full examination of the consequences.
  The Select Committee on European Legislation in the other place last week produced a damning report, which may have alerted a number of hon. Members who may not have been aware of the importance of the Single European Act—that peculiarly named animal that is neither an Act nor is it single, although it is certainly European—

  863
  that something grave and important was happening, and in their speeches they made some of the points made in that report.
  The Bill, the Single European Act and the many glosses put upon the issue by the Secretary of State and the Minister in the Committees before which they appear do not disclose the real changes in the law and their implications for the unwritten British constitution. That is a defect that the Committee is right to criticise and question. By the standard of the contributions that have already been made, and may yet be made, mine is a brief speech. I simply seek to endorse the view put by other hon. Members that we are being ill-served by the fact that there is not the detail, the information or the background to such an important issue to enable the Committee to reach a conclusion. The process of debate, which is the hallmark of this Parliament, underlined that with considerable force.
  Before you returned to the Committee, Sir Paul, I was being accused of a variety of heinous crimes. I know that hon. Members on both sides still wish to make brief and relevant contributions, and I hope that in the process of doing so they will highlight the points which have been made already, which validly and rightly should be made.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Cash: I participate in the debate as someone who is by no means an anti-European, as I have made clear on a number of occasions in previous debates. I believe that that has been acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Minister. I am in no sense engaged in a filibuster. I have spoken at length on occasion in other debates, but I have no intention of doing so now.
  One of the great difficulties that faces the European Court of Justice, Britain and Parliament, is our lack of knowledge of European law and procedure. Britain has been a member of the Community since 1 January 1973, yet that seems to have had little impact on the ability or the determination of the various colleges of law to ensure that lawyers know what is going on. It is a matter of some concern to me — I made such a remark in an article which appeared in The Times today — that this deficiency should be put right. As the debate has shown, it is impossible for the House of Commons to know and understand the basis upon which it is considering these matters unless the principles of law and the basis of interpretation of the Community court are well understood by those participating in it. Unfortunately, they are not.
  Although the European Community is a glazed-eye subject and is extremely boring to many, it happens, if I may catch the attention of Opposition Members for one second, to be a matter of considerable importance to the British people. When matters of this sort are being debated, it would help enormously if more of those who have had direct experience of the European Community were to participate to ensure that we have a proper discussion of the principles that apply, especially those that bear on the amendments that are before us.
  Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), who was an MEP, is in her place and she may well wish to help the Committee in that way.
  Mr. Cash: That may be. Only time will tell.
  I shall conclude by quoting from a case in which Lord Denning made the following statement:
  864
  English courts have been exhorted to divine the spirit of a treaty and gain inspiration from it. If they find a gap they must fill it as best they can. They must do what the framers of the instrument would have done if they had thought about it."
  When we are dealing with the interpretation of Community law, which has a direct bearing on our economy and industry, and when we have a debate which is as important as this one, we have the feeling, rather like the hunting of the Snark, that we are looking for something that hardly exists. In fact, we are debating issues of which the people, our courts and the House of Commons have little knowledge and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take this opportunity to exhort those who teach our lawyers to take a more serious interest in the practical questions which arise so that we have a constructive approach to the European Community in this context.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred to knowledge by hon. Members of whom he is one—he knows something about the affairs of the Community—but, more importantly, knowledge of the citizens of this country who are subject to the laws of this House and those of the EEC. As he is a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, I should underline that, much as the Committee might have wished, to provide a comprehensive view of the legislation — if it is not European legislation I do not know what it is — our terms of reference constrained us from doing so.
  We did, in fact, produce a report on the impact of the Single European Act for parliamentary scrutiny, which was our concern. But we were not able to address ourselves to the issues we are discussing tonight—the introduction of what I hope we can call the lower tier European court, who should determine its terms of reference, its membership, who can go to it, and the penalties and adjudication that it should have.
  The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, in its limited time available, did not go far down that road. It established, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) has said, that the answers were not even available to the Government. I suggest that the major difficulty we have faced tonight has been a repetition of questions from hon. Gentlemen. The Government do not know the answers to questions which have been raised on a Bill which they introduced. That is the position at which the Parliament of the United Kingdom has arrived. It has arrived at that position as a result of the consequences of the European Communities Act 1972. We are not debating that Act tonight, and we are not debating the advantages or disadvantages of membership or continued membership. We are discussing whether or not the judicial powers of the EEC should be expanded into a lower tier court.
  The House has not heard what the Government have said on the issue, surprisingly enough, in a command paper. The Government issued Cmnd. 9761 dated March 1986 called "Developments in the European Community July-December 1985". I shall read to the House what the Government said about the European Court of Justice. Paragraph 2.10 states:
  "On the European Court of Justice agreement was reached inter alia on new treaty articles providing power to set up a Court of First Instance. it is hoped that when this power is exercised it will enable the Court of First Instance to deal with

  865
  staff matters and cases raising complex issues of fact, (especially competition and anti-dumping cases). The changes are designed to reduce the Court's heavy workload."
  That does not suggest what we have gleaned tonight. A much bigger scope is envisaged than the modest clearing away of complex cases and dealing with staff. The sentence at the end:
  "The changes are designed to reduce the Court's heavy workload."
  is a little ambiguous. Whilst, it would relieve the workload of the European Court of Justice as such, it would not relieve the total workload of the courts of justice of the European communities, which is a different thing. The number of cases going for adjudication would almost certainly be greater. The figure may be three times that of the 1973 figure. If the figure was not greater, there would be no need to set up a lower tier of court to clear away the ground.
  Mr. Marlow: Is not the best reference Professor Parkinson? Would he not say that we would not expand the operation, but the work that it did?
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman may be right. I think that Professor Parkinson's law is universal. There is another factor, which the hon. Gentleman has forgotten. It has not been mentioned much tonight. If the scope of the European Community were enlarged by definition —in other words, if the area over which it is given jurisdiction widened—the number of cases taken to the court would be likely to increase, even if that jurisdiction were of equal controversiality as that of the existing legislation. I understand that the position is different. Later, we shall discuss widening the scope of the European Community.
  Lord Cockfield presented a Green Paper containing 300 regulations in the appendix. Those regulations are waiting to descend on us when the internal market is perfected between now and 1992. I hazard a guess that it was difficult to formulate those regulations and that they are probably more controversial than those that we have already considered. I suggest, therefore that there might be more litigation than we already have. Not only will the scope of EEC legislation be wider but the amount of litigation that it throws up may be greater.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is no opporunity to appeal against a decision by the Court of Justice? The court's decisions are final, which raises certain peculiar difficulties which may be overcome in part by the provisions of this article. As I said before, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is effectively being supplemented. The courts are tied to what the treaties allow them to do and the article provides an opportunity to expand their jurisdiction. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the jurisdictional provisions of the treaties have been observed as follows:
  "No international tribunal has ever been equipped with so varied a jurisdictional competence as has the Courts of the European Communities".
  The court has, in fact, a wide degree of competence.
  Mr. Spearing: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he should be careful. As I understand it, this is not an international organisation in the normal sense of international treaties. All these treaties are supra-national, which is very different. I think that the hon. Gentleman is
  866
  suggesting that, because there is no appeal against a decision of the European Court of Justice, there should be a higher level of court, a sort of House of Lords in Europe—as well as the lower tier which we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman should be careful because he suggests creating possibly three tiers of European courts of justice. By the very nature of the ongoing legislation from the European Community, those tiers would, I suggest begin to absorb an increasing proportion of matters that are justiciable in the United Kingdom. It may well be that aspect that has caused a certain flurry in the legal professions and in the columns of The Times. An expansion of European law within the legal system of Britain would begin to have severe repercussions on the legal professon and on those who need to take matters to the lower tier court.
  I shall hasten on because my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment and a frequent participant in European discussions, may wish to catch your eye, Sir Paul. I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions in addition to those posed by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). Under article 4 of the Single European Act, proposed article 32d of the treaty of Rome states that it is the request of the Court of Justice that there should be another court. Will the Minister confirm that the terms and conditions of the lower tier court will be created not by the European Council but by the Court of Justice acting — uncharacteristically, I should have thought, as a court—in effectively an executive capacity? The Court of Justice, following decisions agreed unanimously by the Council, is acting at least in a semi-executive role in producing the regulations by which it will administer the lower tier.
  Article 4(3) states:
  "The members of that court shall be chosen from persons whose independence is beyond doubt and who possess the ability required for appointment to judicial office".
  Since there will he no appeal from these courts, other than on a point of law, perhaps I am inaccurate in calling it the lower tier. It is the court of first instance, and may be the court of last instance for many people or bodies. I do not know how far the natural human body, which was mentioned earlier extends. Does it extend to trade unions, employers' organisations, manufacturers' associations or to associations of those engaged in some sorts of retail trade? All those bodies will be heavily involved in the avalanche of harmonisation to which the House may soon be subjected, and may have recourse to the courts.
  11 pm
  The Minister must tell us—the Government may not decide this, but she may have heard a whisper from the Court of Justice—what the court intends. If there has been no information from this great court to Her Majesty's Government, we should adjourn the debate and not proceed with the Bill. If we do not get firm replies about what is intended, it would be improper for us to proceed with this part of the Bill. If it is improper for us to proceed with this part of the Bill, that must be true of the entire Bill.
  Paragraph 4 states:
  "That court shall establish its rules and procedures in agreement with the Court of Justice."
  I presume that that means that the lower-tier court shall establish its own rules, provided that the Court of Justice agrees. It is yet another example of self-legislation by the

  867
  courts, not even under the control of the Council of Ministers. It does not say that it shall be subject to unanimity, only that it must be approved by the Court of Justice. The lower-tier court will establish that in the first instance.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman should have read the next line, which states:
  "These rules shall require the unanimous approval of the Council."
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the generation of such proposals lies entirely with the second-tier court. It cannot be initiated by the Council of Ministers or, surprisingly, by the Court of Justice.
  If we translated that position to the United Kingdom, it would be extremely strange. The administration of justice here stems from statutes passed in the House, to which the High Court of Justice and lower courts are subject, save only for the common law. This is almost the reverse.
  As a London Member of Parliament, I frequently show parties of visitors from schools and, alas, nowadays, the unemployed, round the Palace of Westminster. When we pass through the Royal Gallery, I explain that judges come there once a year. I ask them ''What do you see in courts?", and they say, "The royal arms." I say, "Yes, that is the King's court. The King or the monarch dispenses justice. The courts in this land arc the courts of the Crown, and the judiciary which is responsible alone to the monarch who gives royal assent to statutes passed by the House."
  Some time ago — I apologise to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) for not giving him notice that I would raise this point, but he is big enough to take it—when the European Communities Bill was going through the House, the right hon. Gentleman, then Prime Minister, made a speech, reported in The Times, to the effect that the position of the Queen would not he affected. I read that with some incredulity, because any first-year law student—I have not been one, but I understand that they consider the British constitution as a starting point—knows only too well that Britain's laws, at least until 1973, were made only with royal assent or in regulations by the Crown in Privy Council. Justice and courts were under the jurisdiction of the Monarch. After 1973, in accordance with the Act, that changed. The Monarch and the Crown was no longer central to our system of legislation expenditure, administration and justice. In all those aspects the Crown was short-circuited. Laws were imposed on this country, or at least were accepted through the medium of that Act, which came directly from Brussels. They did not pass through this Chamber and they did not need the Royal Assent. Therefore, far from the Queen not being affected, she and her heirs and successors, as long as the Act is on the statute book, will be bypassed. We then had the position, extraordinary as it may seem, of the Prime Minister not knowing the basic fundamental constitution of the land.
  I would suggest that we are now faced with the second stage of that constitutional change. We are now setting up a second tier of courts to which the citizens of this land, and perhaps corporate bodies, will have first recourse, which are not under the aegis of the Crown, will not have the Royal Arms above them, will not be subject to the statutes of the House or to its determination. They will not even be subject, as we have seen, to the chain of
  868
  accountability through the Council of Ministers. The fact that that is so has been amply demonstrated today in debate by the fact that so far—the Minister has yet to speak—she and all the publications of the Government have not explained how it will work.
  Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend keeps referring to the European courts in plural, not just the European Court of Justice and its new subsidiary court, but the chances of several subsidiary courts being established. I believe that in that view he seems to have the support of Her Majesty's Government. They have chosen wording in clause 2 of the Bill which refers to "any court" under the European Court of Justice whereas in the Single European Act it merely refers to "that court". I do not know if my hon. Friend can answer, but I hope that the Minister can say why the Government have taken it upon themselves to go beyond the terms of the Single European Act in making provision for any European court when there is only one and there can be only two under the Single European Act? Why do they not specify the subsidiary court in the terms of amendment No. 1 in the name of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)?
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, I shall now try to choose my words carefully. It ought not to be necessary because if we had had it spelt out in a White Paper one would have thought that most of this debate would have been unnecessary and the Government's concern over the time factor would not be as great.
  As I understand it, the word "court" in the singular implies a level of judicial authority. Let us take the High Court in the Strand. It has three divisions, but it is the High Court, singular, although we all know that it sits in multiple in many courts with many divisions. I believe, from what I have heard and hope to see ere long, that in Luxembourg the European Court sits, but it sits in multiple chambers with multiple numbers of judges and could, under the existing European statues, multiply itself, provided the Council voted the money, ad infinitum. For some reason, it has not been chosen to exercise that solution to the problem of workload which the Government showed us in their White Paper. Even if it had 20 or 30 courts, in the normal everyday sense of the word, taking 20 cases at one time, it would still be the European Court of Justice.
  I answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. When I refer to the European Court, I refer to at least two levels the present level of what is described as the European Court of Justice in the Single European Act, and what I have dubbed the lower tier court, which could nevertheless sit in multiple. This is a demand-led issue, according to the number of cases that has to be met. I could foresee a lower tier European court on the northern circuit, perhaps calling at London, Edinburgh and Copenhagen. Perhaps there would be a circuit based on the Franco-Belgian tradition, calling at Luxembourg, Belgium, Paris, Strasbourg and Bordeaux. We must not forget our Spanish friends—the Lusitanian tradition, and the tradition of the Iberian peninsula, with the court perhaps calling at Lisbon, Madrid and Rome. There are our Greek friends as well. There could be many multiple courts. My hon. Friend is right. Clause 2 says just "any court attached thereto". It is wide open. There is nothing to prevent all that happening under the Bill.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is coming to a very important point. The debate has been brought about because of the Single European Act, but for some reason best known to the Government, the Bill is much more widely drawn. Is it not right that there is nothing in the Bill to stop the European Court subsuming national courts? If the hon. Gentleman knows of anything that stops that, I should be relieved to know it. Perhaps individual areas of policy could be subsumed, but under the Bill as it is written—not the Single European Act—the European Court at a later stage could totally subsume national sovereign courts of the United Kingdom and other countries.
  Mr. Spearing: I shall come to that.
  I should like to take up what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government have not explained anywhere that I have seen why the terms of the Bill are apparently that much wider than those of the Single European Act. But is there anything in the Single European Act as drafted that would prevent the rather fanciful Gilbertian picture that I painted? The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) may know better, but I suggest that there is not. Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether there is nothing in the Single European Act article to prevent it. Is there something that the Government know that we do not, so they have drawn the clause so wide? If that was not envisaged, why did they put it at that width? The only suggestion that I can offer is that they did what parliamentary draftsmen and wise Ministers do. They said, "Let's make it wide enough so that we do not have to have legislation again," but that is not a good reason.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Apart from the extension to which the hon. Gentleman refers, does he accept that the crucial extension of the work of the court under the clause is the extra powers of interpreting the new Single European Act—matters such as tax harmonisation, over which there are no powers at present? The court now has the ability to make determinations on those matters. Does the hon. Gentleman further accept that that major extension of the work of the court is in the interpretation of the new clauses that include the convergence of economic policies, tax harmonisation, environment, technology and many other issues?
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I was about to say. I was about to refer the House to the fact that Title VII on page 17 of the Single European Act, Cmnd. 9758, introduces for the first time, specifically, areas over which the European Community has legislative rights. At present the legislative rights of the European Community are restrained within the terms of the Treaty of Rome. They can be excepted only by use of the existing article 100. That article states that any matter which affects the operation of progress of the Common Market requires unanimity. There has been much discussion within the Community as to whether the Common Market requires expansion in that area. In fact article 100 of the treaty states that
  "The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, issue directives for the approximation of such provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the common market."
  11.15 pm
  I would draw the House's attention to the words "directly affect". There has been much argument as to how
  870
  far the article can be pushed. Regulations arise from the Commission to the Council on matters such as the environment, public health, conditions in slaughter houses and about the conditions of health for workers and so on, and it has been said that in order to obtain a Common Market there must be common regulations on a wide range of issues. Others have said that that is pushing things too far. Until now, as we know so well, from the trailers to this debate, any one country in the 12 can say "No dice". The country does not even have to say that the matter affects the national interest, it need only say that it does not agree and that the matter goes too far. As the matter must be unanimous under article 100, it is finished.
  The controversy about support at that stage is truncated. If the Bill is enacted, we will be in a new ball game. The House will consider article 100A later, together with article 100B—the latter being a goad to speed up 100A and is a long stop provision. We will then have to face the establishment of the internal market by 1992. That is presaged by the Cockfield White Paper and there are 300 draft regulations in waiting.
  As I said earlier in an intervention, by definition the 300 regulations are likely to be controversial. If they were not, they would already have been passed.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the creation of the internal market is likely to benefit this country? The internal market in services, especially the financial services, is something that we have been prostrated on for some time. There have been many non-tariff barriers to trade against our exporters and the purpose of the creation of the internal market is to deal with those problems.
  On the point which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised about the court being different from any other court that we have previously known, does he not agree that that applies to any court of reference that arises out of a treaty obligation? It is no different from our agreeing to refer a matter to the International Court at the Hague in the past. We are only subject to the court as long as we are subject to the Treaty. This Parliament is sovereign and can de-ratify or renege on the Treaty at any time it wishes.
  Mr. Spearing: I do not wish to proceed too far down that road, as it leads outside the realm of litigation. I want to keep my remarks within that realm and that brings the matter within the scope of the debate. However, there are widely differing views on the matter. It is true that the Government have said that the expanding internal market will be beneficial to this country in spite of the £10,000 million trade balance in manufactures. When the Minister was asked about that in Committee she said that those trends existed. Therefore, there is some doubt whether the expansion of the internal market is beneficial. But it is undoubtedly true that the Government say that whatever the form of harmonisation, it is advantageous to Britain so long as it brings in market forces and allows them to move freely over the EC. The hon. Gentleman may agree with that view, and it is certainly the view of the Front Bench, but I do not think that it carries universal agreement among Conservative Members. A modicum of scientific observation and a little statistical analysis might have called that into question.
  The Government are going ahead with that area of regulation which will automatically require and produce a vast amount of litigation.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Article 130B title V commits member states to conduct their economic policies in such a way as to reduce disparities between the various regions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been easy a fortnight ago for the Cornish tin miners to have taken the British Government to the European Court, saying that the Government were not applying that policy? Will not this Act massively extend the work of the European Courts because for the first time they are being given the right to make judgments on the economic policies of member states?
  Mr. Spearing: I shall come to that area of litigation in a minute, but first I should like to put to the House another area.
  I understand that some of the regulations now under discussion include such matters as the harmonisation of income tax and of excise duties on wines, spirits and beers. That is under the jurisdiction of the internal market council, and I am not sure whether it has reported fully to the House. When regulations are passed in that sort of tender area, I like the hon. Friend, can imagine people, for example, with high salaries subject to enormous differentials of pay—for the sake of cross party amity I shall not mention some current personalities who are earning high sums—investing money in lawyers to take their case to the European Court. They do not want their income tax to be harmonised to their disadvantage. It may also be to the advantage of corporate bodies to take their case to the court.
  Title VII is headed "Environment" and article 130R, paragraph 3, states:
  "In preparing its action relating to the environment, the Community shall take account of:
  —available scientific and technical data;
  —environmental conditions in the various regions of the Community;
  —the potential benefits and costs of action or of lack of action;
  —the economic and social development of the Community as a whole and the balanced development of its regions."
  That includes tin mines. I can see some litigious persons looking at some regulation and saying, "But the Government did not take that into account," and going immediately to the court. Why not? The environment is a minefield for any Minister of any Government in any country. That is just one group.
  What about research and technological development which is worth much more money? There is a whole batch of new articles to the Treaty of Rome, 130F, 130G, 130H, 130I and 130K to 130Q, which relate to statutory arrangements for framework programmes, and to the implementation of multiannual framework programmes and of research, technological development and demonstration programmes. We already have such arrangements, but these are being written into the statute.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman drew the Committee's attention to title 7 on the environment, paragraph 3, the last sentence of which says:
  "The Community shall take account of … the economic and social development of the Community as a whole and the balanced development of its regions."
  One of the greatest problems that the Government have when they want to build, for example, a road, is the great planning inquiries. Programmes can be held up for months or years on end.
  It is possible under this title that if a motorway were postulated between, say, Cardiff and Edinburgh, the
  872
  Italians could go to the European Court and say that it was unfair and would he advantageous to us and that they wanted one in Italy. Surely there will be an immense amount of litigation.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am working alphabetically backwards in the litigation litany in drawing the attention of the House to new articles of the treaty of Rome—130A, B, C, D, and E. They relate to a heading which I find intriguing—"Economic and social cohesion". Whether one can legislate for that I doubt, but Article 130C says:
  "The European Regional Development Fund is intended to help redress the principal regional imbalances in the Community through participating in the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind and in the conversion of declining industrial regions."
  I suppose that that is a fine aspiration, but many of the articles will clearly give rise to increasing sensitivity to litigation of the very sort with which the lower tier court was presumably designed to deal. I think that the Government said that it was "of considerable complexity".
  My point is that there will be greater need of these lower tier courts. that they will not be courts of her gracious Majesty—
  Mr. Moate: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Spearing: I regret that I must continue.
  Despite being a great impact on many British citizens and many corporate interests, it will not be possible for the House to protect those interests adequately because not only have we not got complete control over legislation —I make no point about that tonight—but we have not even got control over those who will create, run and cause regulations to be made for these new courts.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: Mrs. Lynda Chalker.
  Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Sir Paul. I hope that the Minister is not seeking to wind up before other members of the Committee have spoken.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: The Minister has risen and I have called her. Mrs. Chalker.
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Sir Paul. I draw your attention to the fact that the proposer of one of the amendments that we are debating is not here. I am the second proposer of that amendment and I trust that, because you have quite properly called the Minister, that will not debar me from speaking on that amendment.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is a matter for the discretion of the Chair whom the Chair calls and it is customary, when Ministers rise, that they should be called. Mrs. Chalker.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): After over three anti half hours of a wide-ranging debate, I may be able to outline why the court of first instance has been included in the Bill and perhaps clear up some of the matters resting in the minds of hon. Members.
  First, the proposal for a court of first instance reflects what has been a threefold increase in the work load of the European Court over the past: 10 years. The number of cases brought before the court rose from 297 in 1983 to 433 in 1985. More than half of those cases were about staff terms — promotion, conditions of employment, salary

  873
  increases and so forth. They were not the sort of case which had normally been associated with the European Court of Justice, but they rightly went to it.
  11.30 pm
  The proposal is that the court of first instance will do no more than relieve the Court of Justice of some of the existing burden of work. That is exactly what was said in Cmnd. 9761, published in March, in paragraph 2(10) on page 9, and as I replied in giving evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in paragraphs 180 and 181.
  The court of first instance will be attached to the European Court of Justice. It will hear certain classes of action brought by individuals or companies and its decisions will be subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Justice. It will not hear cases brought by member states, nor will it hear cases brought by the institutions of the Community. Such cases will go to the European Court of Justice. It will not take on new work and it will not have new powers. It will be there to deal with some of the detailed probing that is necessary in cases that now come to the European Court of Justice.
  I was quite right to say in response to questioning in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that we await precise proposals from the European Court of Justice about the kind of work that the court of first instance could most suitably take on. Because it does not take on new work and will not have new powers, its work will be limited. We anticipate that the European Court of Justice will probably recommend that the court of first instance should take on the sort of cases that I have described—those which involve time-consuming fact finding and those of minor legal importance. Such cases will include applications about employees terms of service with Community employers which currently account for half the cases that come before the Court of Justice. These sometimes take the form of disputes between a Community institution and one of its employees who may feel that he was not receiving the pension to which he was entitled under staff regulations.
  Other work that may be devolved to the court of first instance is in the commercial field, in particular competition and anti dumping cases, where unravelling the complicated issues of fact often entails a disproportionate amount of time and can be done by a subsidiary court of first instance working directly to the European Court of Justice.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Why did the Government not wait to receive from the European Court of Justice a detailed proposal about exactly what the court wanted before agreeing to go ahead?
  Mrs. Chalker: I can only tell the hon. Member for Inverness, Nair and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that it was made quite clear, although I was not in this job at the time, that the European Court of Justice gave, as I have just given, examples of the issues that it wanted considered. I do not know why, but as far as I know, the issues have not been put in formal terms. I understand that they are no different from the terms that I have described.
  Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: I will not give way. I have waited a long time to try to clear up matters. I shall now do that. If other
  874
  questions are asked, so be it. Quite understandably, some hon. Members have expressed concern at the provision in the Single European Act which empowers the Council, acting unanimously at the request of the Court of Justice, to amend title III of the court's statute to meet changing needs. Hon. Members anxiety is that this could be a constitutional innovation allowing the Council to amend a protocol to the treaty without reference to the Parliaments of member states. That is a mistaken view. Article 3 of the protocol of the statute of the European Court of Justice deals only with the procedures of the court. It does not deal with substantive powers or with its composition or organisation. The provision in article 12, which refers to the EC treaty, simply allows the court's procedure to be amended in the Council by unanimity. That would make it easier and quicker to produce procedural reforms, but not substantive reforms or reforms of composition or organisation. It is severely limited.
  The substantive powers of the court, about which hon. Members were rightly concerned, are laid down in the EC treaty and not in the protocol. We have been speaking only of the protocol. Those substantive powers of the court can be changed only by treaty amendment and that would require the unanimous agreement of the member states and the consent of national Parliaments. The fear in that regard does not hold good.
  We are not proposing a constitutional innovation. Articles 165 and 166 of the EC treaty provide that the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Court, can already increase the number of judges and advocates-general and make consequential amendments to the court's statute.
  A number of hon. Members referred to the words "any court" in clause 2. I fully understand why the phrase may have seemed a little strange on first reading. The Single European Act does not establish the court of first instance. It enables the Council, acting unanimously, to establish such a court on a proposal by the European Court of Justice. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber pointed out, no such formal proposal has yet been made and the Council of Ministers has not therefore been in a position to take a decision. We shall consider a decision only when a formal proposal is made. Anyway, a decision could not be taken until the Single European Act was in force throughout the Community. I am not a lawyer, but I am told that it is premature in legal terms to talk about "the court", as the court of first instance does not yet exist. Therefore, the court does not have a name and the legal terminology "any" is the correct term. The only court for which the provision will be used is that provided for in articles 4, 11 and 26 of the Single European Act, whatever form it takes.
  The word "any" also covers the possibility that the European Court of Justice may propose a single body or, for example. two specialist chambers, one for staff cases and one for preliminary fact finding in commercial cases, which would be separate, but similar, exercises.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend started by saying that she visualised only one further court being spawned by the European Court, but now she says that there might be two courts. Does she deny that, given the way in which the Bill is written, there could be a proliferation of courts at a later stage and that the House would be unable to do anything about it?
  Mrs. Chalker: Yes, that could be possible, in order to speed up the work of the court and to get through the time-consuming but necessary fact-finding. However, the thought and the intention have always been to establish a sensible and clear manner of proceeding—not one that grows in the way that my hon. Friend fears, but one that is decided by the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously. We have the very safeguard for which my hon. Friend asks.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Although my hon. Friend believes that there is protection in the unanimity of the council, does she accept that there is genuine concern about a proliferation in the number of courts. Might not the answer be to amend clause 2 so that these agreements by the Council of Ministers are subject to the approval of the Parliaments of member states just as most of the regulations promoted by the Council of Ministers are? Would that not be a useful amendment to the Bill, and will the Government suggest it to the Council of Ministers?
  Mrs. Chalker: I shall look again at what my hon. Friend has said. However, because we are talking about procedures and not about the composition, organisation or substantive powers, I think that my hon. Friend is unnecessarily concerning himself.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: I should like to get on, because we have had a long debate and the hour is late. I should like to comment on the points that have been raised.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) opened the debate, he commented on the provision in article 12. I have already explained that the provision in article 12 simply covers the court's procedure. We are seeking to make it easier and quicker to introduce procedural reforms. But I assure him that substantive changes of the Court's powers will have to go before national Parliaments. There is nothing in the Single European Act or in this Bill that alters that in any way. I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that the court's procedure is largely a technical matter. It is unnecessary for it to go through the full treaty amendment procedure. It is the unanimity requirement that constitutes the safeguard in the unlikely event that a proposed change of procedure would adversely affect the interests of member states, or individuals or bodies within those member states. That is the safeguard. I am not prepared to accept the amendment, because it would change the substance of the Single European Act, as it was agreed by the Heads of Government. However, I take on board all that my hon. Friend said in this somewhat long debate. I understand that he is asking reasonable questions—as he sees them —and although I may not agree with him, he has every right to ask them.
  I was also asked about several items that I have not covered previously. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked about the size of the staff of the court of first instance and its cost. He was concerned that it should not grow. Indeed, I share the concern that staff numbers should not grow out of proportion. He cited figures for employment in the Commission, but he took a very different situation from the one facing us. We are now a Community of 12, and we are not likely to be other than a Community of 12 for as far as anybody can reasonably foresee.
  876
  I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East estimates until the European Court of Justice makes proposals for the terms of reference of the court of first instance. But because those terms of reference will be determined by the Council acting unanimously when it decides on the establishment of the court of first instance, it will be possible for the member Governments, acting together in the Council of Ministers, to satisfy themselves on the level of staffing and costs before agreeing to the establishment of such a court. I assure my hon. Friend that that will be done.
  Mr. Budgen: I have taken a slight interest in Turkey's application to join the EEC. As it happens. I obtained a copy of tomorrow's edition of the Financial Times. On, think, page 3 there is a large article about the new application from Turkey to join the EEC. There is a great deal of vague and friendly talk, particularly from the French, about Turkey. From her position of great importance and power, my hon. Friend has, in an important part of her speech, blocked the way for Turkey. Those of us who wish to see an on-going, generous, open-armed FEC have great hopes for Turkey. We want to draw attention to—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I find it difficult to relate that intervention to the amendment.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Budgen: But my hon. Friend denied Turkish application for membership as an important part of her argument. Since she speaks with enormous authority and, plainly, from a prepared brief, we should have an immediate statement so that those in Turkey who are preparing their new application may know whether the Minister speaks with the authority of the Prime Minister and the Government.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the Minister will not be tempted to stray out of order.
  Mrs. Chalker: Whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) says, he will not soft soap me into stepping out of order.
  I was trying to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. I have already covered what he said about article 12 and rule changes. He asked how often rule changes could be made. It is for the Council of Ministers to change rules when necessary. I cannot imagine that the court would wish to have its rules constantly changed. There would have to be good reasons for the Twelve, acting together, to change the rules. My hon. Friend also asked about the increasing power of the European courts. There is no increase in their power.
  A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) asked about articles 4, 11, and 26. Three articles are required because the European Court of Justice acts for the three treaties. Article 4 amends the treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community; article 11 amends the EEC treaty in identical terms; and article 26 amends the European Atomic Energy Community treaty to provide for the court of first instance. All three treaties must be amended in this way because the European Court has a single statute and rules of procedure, but they cover all three Communities, so the amendment must affect all three. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

  877
  I was asked about the unusual phrase, "natural or legal person". A "natural" person is an individual, I am told, and a "legal" person is a body corporate — mainly companies, but it does not apply to institutions or to member states. That means that as defined in paragraph 1 of article 32 of Chapter I of title II of the Single European Act, we are dealing with individuals or bodies corporate, not with member states or institutions.
  Mr. Foulkes: Can the Minister deal with a point with which I have been waiting for her to deal since 7 o'clock this evening?
  Mrs. Chalker: We did not start until about a quarter past.
  Mr. Foulkes: I was anticipating the hon. Lady's speech, of course. Indeed, I thought about it this morning.
  Will the Minister now deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) said about individuals who are resident in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man but who are British citizens and have British passports? Will account be taken of them?
  Mrs. Chalker: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has someone extra special in mind, but if he is a British citizen he is covered, as any other British citizen is covered, if he has a case that is within the rules.
  The hon. Member for Walthamstow asked whether any natural or legal person could bring a case before the European Court of Justice within the treaty rules. Under article 173(2) he could—the nationality or employment provided for in the rules are immaterial in that case. Whether a case would go to the full European Court of Justice would depend not on the status of a person as an individual but on the subject matter of the case and whether it should be allocated to the court of first instance or rest with the European Court of Justice. Those details still have to be settled by the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously.
  I was asked a series of other questions about cases that have been before the European Court of Justice and how compliance had been insisted upon. Once the court had ruled on the distribution of political funds— the example quoted—and that the matter was outside the powers of the European Parliament, it was for the European Parliament to implement the judgment. I understand that the European Parliament is now considering what to do. The point is that once the European Court of Justice has ruled, it is for the body on which it has ruled to take the appropriate action. If it does not do so, there may be a further intervention by the court, but that would depend very much on the case.
  The hon. Member for Walthamstow asked about chambers of the court rather than the court of first instance, and I understand why he raised that point. The European Court of Justice already divides into chambers, but it is still swamped by the very many cases and the intricate detail of them. What would not be done by creating additional chambers, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, would be to dispose of the enormous work load on the judges of the court. It would make much more sense to deal with the additional work load by determining a particular class or type of action that could be dealt with separately, such as unravelling all that detail. I am sure
  878
  that the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that in some constituency cases we wish that there were someone to unravel the detail before reaching a conclusion. It is something not unlike that.
  The important thing is that the European Court of Justice will be free to devote itself to cases that are brought by member states or Community institutions and not widen, as hon. Members rightly feared, the scope of the cases coming before it.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because she has been patient. It is an important point on which there is some ambiguity. We can understand a lower court preparing a case and unravelling the details before it goes to the higher European Court of Justice, but we understand from the terms of the treaty that there is no appeal other than on a point of law. Is she saying that in certain circumstances the new courts will, nevertheless, at the request of the European Court of Justice have some form of preliminary hearing, or will it be the whole case? If it is unravelling the difficulties, there must be a passage from one court to the other, other than on a point of law.
  Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but the detail of how exactly this will work has still to be determined, which is why I have been interested in the debate this evening. In determining exactly what should be referred to the court of first instance, it can delineate what can be left there and what can go back up to the European Court of Justice. Given the terms under which the idea of the court of first instance was arrived at, that is not something that will give us any difficulty. The aim is to relieve the work load of the European Court by lessening the detailed work that it has to undertake. The European Court will hear the cases once the detail has been unravelled.
  It is evident from the debate that an infinite number of questions could be asked on these matters. Many of the questions this evening have been hypothetical, but it is important that I tackle two of the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. My hon. Friend asked whether rule changes to the European Parliament would be subject to national Parliaments. I hope that I have satisfied him on that score. He then asked whether the Government had sought the views of the United Kingdom courts on the impact and the power of the European Courts. As I have already explained to him, as there is no change in the power of the European Court of Justice, its impact and power will be no different from that which we face now. It is for the House to decide, as it will do in a moment, no doubt—
  Mr. Budgen: Is my hon. Friend assuming the power of the Chair now?
  Mrs. Chalker: That was a manner of speaking. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West forgets how late the hour is.
  I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East about Clause 2(b) on the issue of false statements in the court of first instance. My hon. Friend wanted to know whether the issue would be tried and, if necessary, whether punishment would be imposed by the European Court rather than the British court. That will not happen. Section 11(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 provides that those who make false statements during sworn evidence before the European Court shall be

  879
  guilty of an offence under United Kingdom law and may be proceeded against in a British court as if they had committed the perjury here. My hon. Friend need not have concern on that ground.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East raised a number of other matters, one of which I shall try to answer without straying from the rules of procedure. My hon. Friend asked about European Commission action against the United Kingdom if we were to fail to harmonise in accordance with the obligations of the Single European Act. The European Court will have the jurisdiction in future, just as it has now, to decide whether member states are acting in accordance with their obligations. That will apply to the Single European Act as it does in respect of the three Community treaties.
  Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: Yes, if my hon. Friend will allow me to finish what I am saying.
  The Commission will not be able to bring actions against member states in the court of first instance. That is expressly excluded by the final sentence of the first paragraphs in the new provisions in articles 4, 11 and 26 of the single Act, which I described in response to the speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow.
  On the specific issue of the harmonisation of VAT and excise duties, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, the amended article 99 makes it clear that any decisions imposing new obligations on member states must be taken by unanimity. I suspect that we shall be dealing with that in a later debate if the relevant amendment is called.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend has been helpful on an important issue and I am grateful to her. She said that the Commission could not take the power to say that Britain had not harmonised its VAT adequately for the purposes of article 99 in the court of first instance. That is clear and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Would it be possible for the Commission to take action in the normal Court of Justice because Britain had not harmonised in accordance with article 99. That is something that every taxpayer wants to know.
  Mrs. Chalker: It would be, if that were the case and we were so subject, but the position is not altered by the Bill. It is not altered by the Single European Act. I think, Sir Paul, that you will allow me to debate that when we consider amendment No. 7, and you would rule me out of order if I went further down that path.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has said that the court will take account of the Single European Act. To what extent will the court take account of the preamble?
  Mrs. Chalker: I intended to refer to that. The preamble concerns aims and objectives. The preamble in no way changes rights or responsibilities. Therefore, it fits together with the rest of the Act. It does not, in itself, confer a right or an obligation. As a statement of aims and objectives it is part of the whole. It is not a covert step, as my hon. Friend seeks to say.
  We have had a long debate on a complicated issue, which has been further complicated by the misapprehensions of a number of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen. This sensible, clear-cut and eminently practical measure can ease the load on the European Court of Justice in a forthright and sensible way. Amendments
  880
  Nos. 1, 4 and 38 would not help in any way. In fact, they would hinder that objective. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the amendments.
  Mr. Marlow: Sir Paul, on a point of order—
  Mr. John Cope (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now:—
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Marlow(Seated and covered): Sir Paul, on a point of order. I raised a point of order before the Whip rose to speak. That was quite clear. I think that all Conservative Members would rightly, like me to raise the point of order. Am I entitled to raise my point of order?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I shall not take the point of order during the Division.
  Mr. Marlow(Seated and covered): I raised a point of order before the Division was called.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I will hear the hon. Member after the Division.
  Mr. Marlow(Seated and covered): The point of order will not be relevant after the Division. Are you trying to silence Back-Benchers?
  The Committee having divided: Ayes 117, Noes 34.

  Division No. 225]

  [12.01 am

  AYES

  Ancram, Michael

  Knox, David

  Arnold, Tom

  Lang, Ian

  Ashby, David

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Baldry, Tony

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Best, Keith

  Lester, Jim

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Lightbown, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Lilley, Peter

  Butterfill, John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Cash, William

  Lord, Michael

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Cope, John

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Couchman, James

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Durant, Tony

  Maclean, David John

  Favell, Anthony

  Major, John

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Malone, Gerald

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Freeman, Roger

  Mather, Carol

  Galley, Roy

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Merchant, Piers

  Gregory, Conal

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Ground, Patrick

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Harris, David

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Harvey, Robert

  Mudd, David

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Newton, Tony

  Hayes, J.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayward, Robert

  Norris, Steven

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hickmet, Richard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Pawsey, James

  Hirst, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Powley, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Raffan, Keith

  Jackson, Robert

  Renton, Tim

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Knowles, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  881

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walden, George

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Spencer, Derek

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Watts, John

  Stern, Michael

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Wheeler, John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Whitfield, John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trippier, David

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Pike, Peter

  Beith, A. J.

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

  Budgen, Nick

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Clay, Robert

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Foster, Derek

  Raynsford, Nick

  Foulkes, George

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Robertson, George

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Snape, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Maxton, John

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Moate, Roger

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Nellist, David

  Mr. Eric Deakins and Mr. Ron Leighton.

  Penhaligon, David

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Sir Paul. Before the Division and before the closure, I sought to raise with you a point of order. I rose to my feet as the Minister was sitting down, and I got to my feet before the Whip got to his feet. I asked to raise a point of order. My hon. Friends are well aware of the fact that I sought to raise the point of order before the Whip got to his feet.
  I do not know how one can have an objective assessment of this, but can I ask you to listen to the Hansard tapes, when you will find out that I sought to raise that point of order before the Whip got to his feet? I know that it was a great convenience for the Government to get the closure, because I would have asked that we report progress. I would have done so at this time of night because it is an important debate and many hon. Members who wished to speak did not have an opportunity to speak. If it is the case that I wished to raise that point of order before the Division, knowing that my hon. Friend will now ask you to report progress, can we reverse the situation, do without that closure and continue the debate?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Points of order were put to me simultaneously and I exercised my discretion to take the point of order on the closure—
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Moate rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I allowed the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to raise his point of order, but I must immediately put the Question on amendment No. 1—
  Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I must put the Question on amendment No. 1.
  Question put accordingly, and negatived.
  To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Cope.]
  Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 69(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education (No. 2) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

  (a) of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants to the Fellowship of Engineering or the Further Education Unit;

  (b) of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State attributable to provisions of that Act enabling him to make payments to any authority in substitution for block grant to which they would he entitled apart from those provisions; and

  (c) of any increase in the sums payable out of money so provided under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 which is attributable to provisions of any Act resulting from the Education (No. 2) Bill regarding the payments to any authority of the amount by which their block grant for any year falls to he increased in accordance with the arrangements under the Act of 1980 for pooling expenditure by local authorities on education and for connected purposes irrespective of whether any block grant is otherwise payable to them for that year.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

  EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education (No. 2) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the recovery from any authority of sums in respect of any amount by which the block grant payable to them for any year is less than the amount, or aggregate amount, by which the block grant payable to them for the year falls to be reduced in accordance with the arrangements under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 for pooling expenditure by local authorities on education and for connected purposes.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton]

  PATENTS, DESIGNS AND MARKS BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 69(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    EDUCATION
    That the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.
    Question agreed to.

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Ray Ellis he discharged from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Mr. Alex Carlile be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Cope.]

  SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
  Ordered,
  That, in the course of its consideration of Scottish Estimates, the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Edinburgh on Monday 30th June at half-past Ten o'clock. —[Mr. Archie Hamilton]

  SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
  Ordered,
  That, in the course of its consideration of Scottish Estimates, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 67 (Meetings of Standing Committees), the Scottish Grand Committee shall have leave at its sitting in Edinburgh on Monday 30th June, to sit until half-past Three o'clock. —[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons he appointed to examine the processes of enacting Private Legislation and to consider whether:

  (a) there are any matters of a kind at present dealt with by Private Bill which could more appropriately be dealt with some other way, taking account of the interests both of promoters and other affected parties;

  (b) any changes are desirable in Private Bill procedure; and

  (c) any amendments are desirable to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 and the procedure thereunder;

  and to consider whether any amendments are desirable to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945. — [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

  Hot Dry Rock Project (Cornwall)
  Motion made, and Question proposed That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  12.16 am
  Mr. David Penhaligon: It gives me considerable pleasure to be able to raise Cornwall's hot rock project on the Floor of the House and to give the opportunity to the Minister to explain the Government's position, and perhaps I can guide his response with one or two questions and observations as we go on.
  The basic theory of Cornwall's hot rock project is not new to many hon. Members who have followed this with any interest. Anybody who has gone down South Crofty mine will be more than aware that the rocks in Cornwall are very hot even at moderate depths. That has been well known for a long time, and it has caused some difficulty with the mining industry. The concept is that if it was possible to drill parrallel holes to a substantial depth and it was then possible to break up the rock between the bottom of those two holes and put cold water down one hole it may be possible to get hot water, indeed steam, out of the other. That is the theory and the background, and much work has gone on in that over the past decade.
  By chance I had some remote connection with the origins of that. I used to work for a company in Camborne called Compair in its research and development department back in 1973, when that company, together with the local school of mines and a small company locally called Penryn Granite did a few tests using the equipment that was then available to monitor the increase of rock temperature as deeper holes were drilled.
  In 1976 the Science Research Council gave the project some money and assistance. In 1977 the European Commission became involved, with much local support. Compair, my old company, and a company called Pneu-o-plant, run by a friend of mine, Mr. Williams, all put a great deal of energy and effort into it out a personal interest that in the long run this was something of above average interest.
  In 1978 the Department of Energy became involved, a little slow for some of our tastes, with a six-year project and then the real work on this concept started. It is fair to say that difficulties were experienced in the early days. There was no great problem in drilling the holes. That has been done elsewhere and satisfactorily on that site. The cracking of the rock at those depths was a new concept and, in the early stages, it is fair to say that when the rocks cracked, they cracked in the wrong direction. When the cold water was put down the hole, far too large a percentage of the water just disappeared.
  A rethink of the whole process, and a discovery that the problem was that the pumping was being carried out at too high a pressure led the project to drill deeper and pump at a lower pressure. Since then tremendous results have been achieved. The holes are now 2,000 m deep, and some 75 per cent. of the water is recovered. The circulation has been going on for some 7,000 hours and the temperature of the rock face, which is just short of 100 deg. C, shows no sign of falling. That is all good. It is a tremendous achievement. It is all new technology. There is no book to which the engineers could go to seek answers to the problems with which they were faced.
  So far so good, but further questions remain. The general belief is that rock of 200 deg. C needs to be found.

  885
  before it is likely that we can produce hot water and steam in the quantities and at the pressure and temperature required to generate electricity. The view of all the geologists is that that temperature is available at 6,000 m. The questions that I ask the Minister will revolve around the reason why the Government have not given the go ahead to drill the deeper holes.
  There are technical question marks. I cannot say that there are problems because as yet we do not know. For example, water at that temperature and pressure has a quarter of the viscosity that it has at normal temperature and pressure. There is a possibility that the flow will become turbulent. If it does, the heat transfer characteristics from the rock to the water, which is extremely important, may be interfered with. It is the view of the scientists and those who have studied the matter that we shall find out only by trying. We are virtually at that point.
  Some 18 months ago, the Government started on an amazing charade. First it was suggested that the project should be privatised. Dr. Tony Batchelor, who I think all would admit is the main driving force behind the project, managed to find someone who would allow it to be privatised. It was American money. The Government eventually turned it down. Whether it was because it was not enough money, or because it was American—all that was in the middle of the Westland affair—we know not. It does not make a tremendous difference. The fact is that the Government killed that aspect.
  Then we started the saga of the chief scientist's report. We understand that the first draft suggested that the project would produce electricity that was as cheap as coal. The report was then redrafted. The second draft suggested that the electricity might be a great deal more expensive than coal. We then had the Russian tragedy. At that point the report went off for the third drafting. That drafting is more strongly in favour of the project than the first. The Minister will know that I tabled some questions and was promised that the report would be published. I would appreciate an idea of when that will be.
  What is certain is that the Government, throughout the negotiations, allowed the project to run within days or at least weeks of the redundancy notices being handed out. The team of experts was on the verge of breaking up. We are talking about very high technology.
  I have had a few Adjournment debates in my time. but I have never known a situation so transformed between the time when I obtained the Adjournment debate and reaching the opportunity to deliver my speech. Between those two dates, the Government announced that they are to fund the project for another two years — a sum of over £5·75 million is to be provided, and £1 million for something extra, which is unspecified.
  Will the Minister confirm what he thinks the engineers and scientists are to do with that sum? I understand that they will be asked to continue the circulation tests to make sure that the temperature profile is maintained. I have no complaint about that. They will be asked to develop tools that are capable of drilling into higher temperature rock, which will be required at deeper depths. I have no complaint about that. Some money will be provided for shallow drilling to check the temperature profile in other parts of my county, to see whether there are other more attractive sites. I have no real complaint about that, either.
  886
  My real complaint is that all adds up to a sum considerably less than what the engineers had hoped for. They will not be able to answer the fundamental question unless the Government have the courage to finance the 6,000 m hole. That is what is required. We would not expect the go-ahead to be open-ended, with no review points or analysis of what happens at various stages. However, until the go-ahead is given for the 6,000 m hole, we will not be able to answer the questions.
  I understand that the tranche of money is intended to cover two years. The scientists tell me that they will be able to tell whether the 6,000 m hole is worth drilling a long time before that two year period elapses. We need to have information from the Government as to when a decision is to be taken on the hole and whether a review relative to that is planned before the two years is up? What criteria will the Minister use to judge whether that prospect is viable?
  It may be that if the hole is drilled and is a success, the Government might not wish to be involved in building the electricity unit. I have no real complaints about that. If a commercial proposition can be involved, I would wish the commercial firm good luck. However, can the Minister say whether any private companies are involved at this stage or whether he expects any to become more involved as time passes?
  We want the go-ahead for the 6,000 m hole with the 200 deg C rock. If that is as successful as the project has been so far—and it is worth recalling and placing on the record that the scientists have made promises and have delivered the goods—what must they do to get the go-ahead for the 6,000 m hole? There is a view that if the Government do not finance it, the hole will not be drilled. However, we seeking answers to questions that will only be answered by carrying out the research. Research is cheap in this area relative to the quantities of energy that may well be produced. It is worth recalling that there are some 6,000 million tonnes of coal equivalent within the south west basin. Even a small percentage of that will be worth recovering.
  The scientists want answers to those questions and I am delighted to have been able to give the Minister the opportunity to clarify these matters. I know that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) wishes to ask some questions, so I will finish my remarks.
  12.27 am
  Mr. David Mudd: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) on his success in securing the debate and I am especially grateful that he has allowed me the opportunity to speak. Although the hon. Gentleman lays claim to the entire county of Cornwall as his county, the constituency in which the project is carried out is exclusively mine. I can therefore speak from a differenct point of view from the hon. Member for Truro, as I know more about the facts and a little less of the political folklore that it has generated during the past five or six years.
  The hon. Gentleman was rather scathing in his suggestion that the Department of Energy has been less than enthusiastic in its support for the project. I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest and tell him the facts which he could easily have obtained had he so wished. Far from being reluctant to give government support, since 1980 the Department of Energy has provided £20 million of

  887
  taxpayers' investment even before the £5·75 million announced as recently as Thursday of last week to see the project through the next two critical years.
  The hon. Gentleman thought that the Department of Energy was dragging its heals. Perhaps he is unaware that I had the honour of pressing the Department to make its decision over the past three months and that that decision was partly associated with my effirts to obtain that early announcement.
  I welcome the fact the. Camborne School of Mines has been awarded a contract and that it will be using Geoscience Ltd. as its sub-contractors. Not only does that guarantee a continuity of exploration, development and exploitation but it suggests that a continued public sector participation rather than a move to the private sector at this stage, will continue to enhance the inter-change of technical knowledge from various competing projects in Germany, Sweden and California. Had the Commercial sector been brought in inopportunely at this stage, it would have inhibited the all important exchanges of knowledge which are so vital to the project worldwide.
  Moreover, the work to be carried out within the new contract period to the end of September 1988 should allay one of the hon. Gentleman's fears, namely, the complete dissipation of the highly professional and expert work team. They now know that they have the guarantees to be able to work together to arrive at all important decisions about what ultimately might be capable of commercial exploitation.
  It is right that the next two years should be seen as the preliminary years of an eight-year programme which could lead to the construction and operation of a power plant in south-west England. That will be a commercial decision and the next two years, which are now firmly guaranteed by the announcement on Thursday, were never in doubt. It was never considered that that support would be withdrawn. The announcement will provide the necessary time for industrial concerns to consider a concerted approach to the development of a pilot plant. It will also give the important and valuable techology the chance to prove itself.
  I hope that details of continued Government support will be made at the latest half way through this new contract period, since I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's view that there can be no denying that delay and prevarication hits morale, causes alarm among those who work on the project and, understandably, leads to the danger of various experts being seduced by private corporations, offering them long-term prospects.
  The two years guaranteed in Thursday's announcement must be used to encourage industrial interest to exploit the technology and to take some of the risks associated with research; to help smooth the transition from full Government support to commercial operation; and to make easier the transition from research to development without any significant extra demands on taxpayers.
  I welcome the partnership of Camborne School of Mines with Geoscience Ltd. in what is now internationally regarded as one of Britain's most promising renewable energy projects. I am proud that in Cornwall, where so much traditional industry and expertise is under threat, my constituency has become the scene of one of the world's most active research programmes into using natural sources for the production of much-needed energy.
  12.32 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) on securing the debate tonight and thank him for opening it. I welcome his interest in one of the promising renewable energy sources that the Government are examining as part of their renewable energy research and development programme. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) has been able to contribute to the debate, because he has put the record straight on some important points. My hon. Friend is a great lobbyist on behalf of the hot dry rocks project in his constituency.
  I am also delighted to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). In recent months both my hon. Friends have been pressing me hard on behalf of the project to make the announcement that I was able to make on Thursday. I am sorry I could not make it earlier, but I made it at the earliest possible opportunity.
  When the House debated the alternative sources of energy on 25 October 1985 I stressed that in many cases we were working on the frontiers of science to establish the renewable technologies firmly in our energy future. In many respects our geothermal hot dry rock work is in the vanguard of this technological advance.
  Since 1980 we have been engaged in one of the most active research programmes worldwide into the possibility of obtaining energy from hot dry rocks beneath the earth's surface. We have invested £20 million in this programme. The prospects are encouraging and for that reason we announced last Thursday that a further £6·85 million will go into this research programme. The major part of this investment will be the extension of the programme carried out by the Camborne School of Mines in Cornwall for a further two year's work from October 1986, and it will cost £5·85 million. Other related work will cost a further £1 million.
  Our hope is to have a commercial prototype in operation with industrial collaboration by the mid-1990s. The work that we have now commissioned will allow us to make decisions as to what could be capable of commercial exploitation.
  The hon. Gentleman may know that I was delighted to have the opportunity of visiting the project last week in the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne. I had the opportunity then of talking to the team directly and I thanked them for their loyalty and the hard work that they have put into the project.
  When the hon. Gentleman throws doubt on whether an announcement could now be made to move on to the next stage, I hope that he will accept from me that I raised that issue with the project team, most of whom were at the meeting with me last Thursday. They all agreed that it was not yet possible to move on to that stage. Everybody was resolved in their determination that the two-year extension would enable us as quickly as possible to move on to making a decision about drilling to a deeper depth.
  Mr. Penhaligon: This is important. Is the Minister clearly saying that the decision to go for the 6,000 m hole can be taken a long time before that two years is up, provided, I accept, that the evidence suggests that that is the logical thing to do?
  Mr. Hunt: I can be quite clear with the hon. Gentleman, because I was pressed in the meeting by my hon. Friend

  889
  the Member for Falmouth and Camborne to make clear exactly what was proposed. I set a target of being in a position to make the decision at some stage next year. I offered to accept a further invitation from my hon. Friend to visit the project in his constituency at an appropriate time next year when I hope that the necessary work will have been completed which will enable us to make a decision on drilling to a deeper depth in good time before the expiry of the two-year period at the end of September 1988.
  I want to stress again that the Government are firmly committed to developing and promoting all economic renewable technologies which have potential to make an economic contribution to the United Kingdom's energy supply. While geothermal hot dry rock technology is very much a technology for the 21st century, other technologies that we have developed such as passive solar design and waste derived fuels are economic now and we are actively promoting their take-up in the market place.
  Major advances have been made on other technologies and some have real promise of becoming economic in the United Kingdom in the near future. In that respect I am encouraged by the progress that we are making in wind power and the next twelve months will see the completion and commissioning of our horizontal and vertical axis machines on Orkney and at Carmarthen bay.
  Since 1979 the Government have spent over £81 million on a comprehensive range of research and development for the renewable technologies, a wise investment given that renewable energy sources have the potential to contribute over 30 million tonnes of coal equivalent per annum to the United Kingdom's energy supply by 2025. No Government have ever had such a positive attitude to wind and tidal energy, to geothermal hot dry rock technology and to renewable sources of energy generally. If the research and development on geothermal hot dry rock is successful and we can move to commercial exploitation then the resource could be significantly increased.
  We are currently carrying out a major programme to develop this promising technology at Rosemanowes quarry, which if successful could extract heat from deep impermeable rocks at depths between 4.000 m and 6,000 m.
  As the hon. Member for Truro said, the programme started in 1977 and it is designed to realise and to determine the technical and economic viability of hot dry rock systems in the United Kingdom. The possible uses envisaged for hot dry rocks are electricity generation, combined heat and power schemes and the direct use of heat.
  At this point I should like to refer to Richard Shock's report. I regret that the hon. Member for Truro made a number of unjust accusations about this report. There has never been any secrecy about it. A report on the economic viability of hot dry rocks was commissioned by my Department last year. The report by Dr. Richard Shock, the chief officer of the chief scientists' group at the energy technology support unit, is in its final draft stages and it is intended that the report should he published as soon as possible. The draft report has been discussed extensively and will take account of comments made by experts in the field, including experts at the Camborne school of mines and Dr. Tony Batchelor. The report examines the economics of hot dry rocks for electricity only, combined
  890
  heat and power and heat only and is likely to conclude that electricity production is the most attractive option for hot dry rock technology.
  The cost of generation is subject to a large number of uncertainties, such as drilling costs and flow in the reservoir, but it is estimated to be 4·5p per kilowatt hour. However, there is a large amount of uncertainty about this figure. The work to be carried out over the next two years will help to eliminate these uncertainties.
  As the hon. Member for Truro will know, the main work on the hot dry rock geothermal research has been carried out by the Camborne School of Mines at the site in Cornwall and the research there has reached an interesting stage. The hon. Member for Truro sought to encompass that in his speech and spoke about the intermediate depth system. That has now been established and is currently being developed. Three holes have been drilled in the rock to a maximum depth of about 2·5 km and experiments have been carried out to open up the natural joints in the rock in order to create a series of fractures between the holes. The object is to achieve good circulation of water through the fracture system or reservoir so that we can be sure that if commercial systems are created at between 4 and 6 km, the flow rates will be sufficient for the economic production of electricity. Although the basic idea sounds easy, I can assure the House that the problems in creating such a system are complex.
  I am delighted that we have some of the best brains in the world present on this project site in Cornwall. Other countries have hot dry rock projects, but the United Kingdom has established itself as the world leader in this technology. I went to see the project last week and I was delighted to hear that the Camborne team has now achieved the highest circulation rates in the world to date. It did that approximately four weeks ago. The circulation rate is about 30 litres per second.
  Mr. Penhaligon: If what the Minister has just said are the best brains in the world in this technology reach the conclusion some time before the two years are up that now is the time to start drilling the 6 km holes, will he give the go ahead and finance that drilling before the two years are up?
  Mr. Hunt: I have already made absolutely clear and I make it clear again that I have set the team a target, which it has readily accepted, that it should place my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a position next year to make a major decision. Everyone agrees that further work must be done first in order to eliminate the uncertainty. At the meeting I attended last week, nobody expected me to go further than that. When I visited the site in Cornwall at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne for the first time in November 1984, and again last week, I was most impressed by the techniques developed by the research team there and the standard of research carried out.
  In a review of renewable energy research and development in 1985, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's advisory council on research and development, ACORD, endorsed hot, dry rock geothermal energy as a "promising but uncertain" renewable technology. ACORD share my view about the high standards of research achieved by the Camborne team. ACORD recommended that the work in Cornwall should continue, and I fully support this view.

  891
  The extension of the work for a further two years beyond October 1986 will enable the complex problems of reservoir formation and the extent of the geothermal resource to be fully understood. This will, if successful, enable us to demonstrate the technical and economic case for a new programme at greater depth, leading to the commercialisation of hot dry rock technology. That is the assurance that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne has constantly sought from me. I have told him many times that there was never any question of terminating the project at this stage. The question was how best we could carry it through to the next stage. The work will continue, with the Camborne School of Mines in the lead. I am anxious to see that every opportunity is given to United Kingdom industry to become involved in the technology so that eventual commercialisation can take place in the United Kingdom economy. A major aim of the two-year extension will, therefore, he to develop a suitable broad based institutional structure for the project, and United Kingdom companies are being encouraged to participate.
  It is also essential that we continue to collaborate in hot dry rock research internationally, and I am pleased that the European Community has so far contributed about £2 million to the work in Cornwall and a further £1 million is expected. The other major project on hot dry rocks is being carried out near Los Alamos in the United States and there is close collaboration technically between the Camborne school of mines and the Los Alamos team. Collaboration is also under way with a joint French-West German project at Soultz, which involves the drilling of a
  892
  1 km deep hole to provide a facility to develop hot dry rock techniques. That project is also partly funded by the European Community. The possibility of collaboration on hot dry rocks research with Sweden is also currently being discussed.
  The longer-term aim of the United Kingdom programme is to have a commercial protoype in operation at about 6 kilometres depth in collaboration with suitable commercial companies by about the mid-1990s. This depends, however, on whether the technical targets at the present depth of 2,000 m can be fully achieved, and whether it can be shown that hot dry rock technology has sound prospects for commercial viability.
  The next two years will be an important proving time for the technology. The project will be subject to review during that period so that all options for the future can be fully considered. I hope that if the review of the longer-term technical and economic prospects for the technology is favourable, a case can be made for a new programme of work at 6 km leading to a commercial prototype.
  I am sure that the House wishes the Camborne team every success in achieving the necessary technical targets that we have now set for the programme. The Government will continue to back the most promising technologies and promote further technological advance wherever necessary to encourage the use of renewable energy sources. Our commitment to geothermal hot dry rock is a clear statement of that intent.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to One o'clock.